VOLUME 2: Enabling Participatory Sourcebook Overview vii The primary target users of the sourcebook...

Edited byJulian Gonsalves, Thomas Becker, Ann Braun,

Dindo Campilan, Hidelisa De Chavez,Elizabeth Fajber, Monica Kapiriri,

Joy Rivaca-Caminade and Ronnie Vernooy

INTERNATIONAL POTATO CENTER-USERS’ PERSPECTIVES WITH AGRICULTURALRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (CIP-UPWARD)

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)

VOLUME 2: Enabling ParticipatoryResearch and Development

Participatory Research andDevelopment

for Sustainable Agriculture andNatural Resource Management

A SOURCEBOOK

ii

Correct Citation:Gonsalves, J., T. Becker, A. Braun, D. Campilan, H. De Chavez, E. Fajber, M. Kapiriri,

J. Rivaca-Caminade and R. Vernooy (eds). 2005. Participatory Research andDevelopment for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management: ASourcebook. Volume 2: Enabling Participatory Research and Development.International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research andDevelopment, Laguna, Philippines and International Development Research Centre,Ottawa, Canada.

Copublished by:International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and DevelopmentPCARRD Complex, Los Baños4030 Laguna, PhilippinesTel: +63-49-5368185Tel/Fax: +63-49-5361662E-mail: [email protected]: www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

International Development Research Centre (IDRC)P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, ONCanada K1G 3H9Tel: +1-613-2366163Fax: +1-613-5632476E-mail: [email protected]: www.idrc.ca

Printed in the PhilippinesISBN (CIP-UPWARD) 971-614-031-2ISBN (IDRC) 1-55250-182-5

The publishers and authors of individual papers encourage readers to quote, reproduce,disseminate and translate materials from this sourcebook for their own use. Dueacknowledgement, with full reference to the article’s authors and the sourcebookpublishers, is requested. The publishers would appreciate receiving a copy of thesematerials.

This sourcebook was developed with the aid of a grant from the:q International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canadaq International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome, Italy

© International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development 2005

www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

www.idrc.ca

Participatory Research and Development:A Sourcebook Overview iii

The Changing Agenda of Agricultural Research andDevelopmentAgricultural research and development has traditionally focused on meeting thechallenge of feeding the world’s hungry population. Central to this agenda is theneed to increase agricultural production through the introduction of technologiesand support services for improving farm yield.

Following the successes of the Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, newerchallenges to agricultural research and development have emerged, such as:

q Promoting more equitable distribution of benefits resulting fromdramatic improvements inagricultural production.

q Sustaining productivity gainsthrough better management ofnatural resources supportingagriculture.

q Shifting the focus of research anddevelopment interventions to lessfavorable environments and low-input agricultural systems.

q Strengthening the capacity oflocal farming communities tocontinuously learn andexperiment ways of improvingtheir agricultural livelihoods.

q Building synergy between technological change and the socio-economic,cultural and political dimensions of agricultural innovation.

In seeking to address these emerging challenges, the dominant transfer-of-technology paradigm has proven inadequate for managing more complex second-generation issues such as: diverse biophysical environments, multiple livelihoodgoals, rapid changes in local and global economies, expanded range of stakeholdersover agriculture and natural resources, and drastic decline in resource investmentfor the formal research and development sector.

Participatory Research andDevelopment: A SourcebookOverview

Key Themes in Post-Green RevolutionAgricultural Research and Development

q Pro-poor targetingq Conservation and sustainable use of

natural resourcesq Development of uplands and other

less-favored areasq Local governance, decentralization

and citizens’ rightsq Equity for women and other

marginalized socio-economic groupsq Trade globalization and supply chainsq Migration and rural-urban dynamicsq Property rights and collective actionq Agriculture and human healthq Multi-stakeholder partnershipsq Local capacity developmentq Organizational learning and change

iv ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

The Changing View of Research and DevelopmentGlobal experiences now show that the changing agenda requires new ways ofthinking about and doing research and development. Fundamental to thisemerging paradigm shift is reassessing the traditional notion of research anddevelopment as a process primarily concerned with generating and transferringmodern technology to passive end-users. Instead, research and development is nowwidely seen as a learning process that:

q Encompasses a diverse set of activities for generating, sharing, exchanging,utilizing knowledge.

q Results in a wide range of knowledge products, from technological tosocio-institutional.

q Builds synergy between local capacities, resources and innovations.

q Draws upon diverse sources of knowledge, from local systems to globalscience.

q Provides decision-support tools and information that enable various typesof users to make strategic choices and actions.

q Requires a holistic perspective of both the biophysical and social spheresin agriculture and natural resource management.

These new perspectives suggest that research and development can no longer bethe exclusive domain of scientists, but rather a joint process requiring theparticipation of a wider range of actors, users or stakeholders. More importantly, itredefines the role of local people from being merely recipients and beneficiaries toactors who influence and provide key inputs to the process.

Participatory Research and Development (PR&D)In reconceptualizing the research and development process, there has been agrowing interest in the use of participatory approaches in the natural resourcemanagement, agriculture and rural livelihoods sectors. These have included:participatory rural appraisal, farmer participatory research, participatory technologydevelopment, participatory action research, participatory learning and action,gender and stakeholder analysis, community-based natural resource management,and sustainable livelihoods approach.

These diverse yet interrelated approaches collectively represent participatoryresearch and development (PR&D) – as a pool of concepts, practices, norms andattitudes that enable people to enhance their knowledge for sustainable agricultureand natural resource management. Its underlying goal is to seek wider andmeaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating andseeking improvements in local situations, needs and opportunities.

Participatory Research and Development:A Sourcebook Overview v

PR&D has partly evolved from efforts to improve technology development anddissemination. However, field experiences show that innovations for improvingagriculture and natural resource management need to address not only thetechnological but also the socio-cultural, political, economic dimensions such as:community structures, gender, collective action, property rights, land tenure, powerrelations, policy and governance.

Participatory approaches are envisioned to help agricultural R&D: 1) respond toproblems, needs and opportunities identified by users; 2) identify and evaluatetechnology options that build on local knowledge and resources; 3) ensure thattechnical innovations are appropriate for local socio-economic, cultural andpolitical contexts; and 4) promote wider sharing and use of agriculturalinnovations. In contrast to the linear process of technology generation-transfer-utilization in conventional approaches, PR&D encompasses a broader set ofphases and activities including:

q Assessment and diagnosis: situation analysis, needs and opportunitiesassessment, problem diagnosis, documentation and characterization.

q Experimenting with technology options: joint agenda setting forexperimentation, technology development and evaluation, integration oftechnology components and piloting.

q Sustaining local innovation: institutionalizing social and politicalmechanisms, facilitating multi-perspective negotiation and conflictmanagement, community mobilization and action, local capacitydevelopment, strengthening local partnerships.

q Dissemination and scaling up: development of learning and extensionmechanisms, information support to macro-policy development,promoting networking and horizontal linkages.

q Managing PR&D: project development, resource mobilization, datamanagement, monitoring and evaluation, PR&D capacity development.

In practice, PR&D is generally distinguished by key elements such as: sensitivity tousers’ perspectives, linkage between scientific and local knowledge, interdisciplinarymode, multi-agency collaboration, problem- and impact-driven research anddevelopment objectives, and livelihood systems framework.

Promoting and Developing Capacity for PR&DWhile there is growing interest in PR&D, it remains widely perceived asincompatible with accepted norms and practices in the mainstream researchcommunity. In the field, PR&D demands a set of knowledge, attitude and skillsthat go beyond the typical human and organizational capacities under top-downresearch and development paradigms.

In addition, the value adding potential of participatory approaches have yet to befully explored by research and development practitioners. There remains a major

vi ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

need to document empirical cases and to systematically assess impact of PR&D.Similarly, there is still limited understanding on PR&D’s complementary role tomore conventional research approaches, and on maintaining effective linkage withmainstream science to facilitate local innovation processes.

Nonetheless, participatory approaches are gradually gaining ground across theinstitutional landscape – from research and academic organizations to non-government organizations (NGOs), development agencies, and local governmentunits. To further promote and develop capacities for PR&D, it is necessary tocreate more opportunities for information exchange, training and networkingamong the growing number of practitioners and organizations seeking to explorethe value-adding potential of PR&D. Among its key challenges are:

q Synthesis: Reviewing diverse PR&D experiences to identify field-testedconcepts and practices for wider sharing and adaptation.

q Capacity development: Developing PR&D capacities of fieldpractitioners and their organizations such as through training, informationservices, networking and development of protocols.

q Establishing support mechanisms for capacity development:Sustaining capacity development through institutionalized, locally-drivensupport mechanisms.

q Integration: Creating opportunities and a supportive environment forintroducing PR&D in mainstream agriculture and natural resourcemanagement programs.

The PR&D SourcebookThe development of this sourcebook supports wider initiatives in promoting easyaccess to systematized information on field-tested PR&D concepts and practicesamong field practitioners and their organizations. It addresses the need to facilitatesharing and use of the expanding knowledge on PR&D by:

1) Identifying and consolidating field-tested PR&D concepts and practicesrelevant to managing natural resources for agriculture and rural livelihood,drawn from experiences of practitioners and organizations around theworld.

2) Repackaging, simplifying and adapting information through theproduction of a sourcebook on PR&D.

3) Distributing and promoting the use of the sourcebook, including itsderived products, particularly in developing countries where access toPR&D information resources is limited.

Participatory Research and Development:A Sourcebook Overview vii

The primary target users of the sourcebook are field-based research practitionersin developing countries seeking to learn and apply PR&D in their respectiveprograms and organizations. They may have technical or social sciencebackgrounds but share a common interest in using PR&D’s general knowledgebase. They are involved in research activities dealing with interrelated issues innatural resource management, agriculture and rural livelihoods.

As a whole, the sourcebook is envisioned to provide general reference andcomprehensive overview on PR&D. In showcasing the rich, diverse perspectives onPR&D, the sourcebook is characterized by the following salient elements:

q Emphasis on information applicable to research- and development-oriented activities, complementing existing publications/materials thatprimarily focus on the use of participatory methods for extension, learningand community mobilization.

q Broad topical coverage of the research and development process. Asan introductory guide on PR&D, it provides general orientation to variousphases or types of activities that are specifically covered by existingmethod- and/or tool-specific publications.

q Focus on the application of PR&D within the framework ofconservation and sustainable use of natural resources. It consistsof papers that share field experiences associated with natural resourcesbeing used in agriculture and rural livelihoods and/or agriculture and rurallivelihoods that consciously maintain long-term productivity of theresource base.

q An integrated socio-technical perspective that takes into account boththe social/human and technological dimensions of innovation requiredfor natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and rurallivelihoods.

q Cross-cutting perspective of PR&D applications, encompassing varioustypes of natural resources, agricultural activities and rural livelihoods; thiscomparative mode of presenting information complements existingpublications that are specific to sub-categories of PR&D applications.

q Conscious effort to seek out papers dealing with lesser known projects/organizations in developing countries, especially PR&D experiences thathave not been (widely) published.

The EditorsJulian Gonsalves, Thomas Becker, Ann Braun,

Dindo Campilan, Hidelisa De Chavez,Elizabeth Fajber, Monica Kapiriri,

Joy Rivaca-Caminade and Ronnie Vernooy

viii ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

roduction of this sourcebook would not have been possible without the generous technicaland financial contribution of the funding partners, collaborating institutions, internationaladvisory committee members, contributors and the working group.

International Advisory Committee

Acknowledgements

P

(full addresses, page 222 of Volume 3)

Special thanks to Gelia Castillo, Carlos Basilio and Raul Boncodin for their valuable inputs inthe development of the sourcebook, review of paper contributions and participation in criticaladvisory committee meetings. Thanks to Bill Carman for his editorial inputs.

We are grateful to Elizabeth Fajber and Ronnie Vernooy of IDRC and Alessandro Meschinelliand Shantanu Mathur of IFAD for facilitating donor support.

Thomas BeckerAssociation for Agriculture and Ecology (AGRECOL)

Ann R. BraunCGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (SWP-PRGA)

Dindo CampilanInternational Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD)

Elizabeth FajberInternational Development Research Centre-South Asia Regional Office

Julian F. Gonsalves (Chairperson)International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD)

Monika KapiririCommunity Development Services

Li Xiao YunChina Agricultural University

Alessandro MeschinelliInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

Ronnie VernooyInternational Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Irene AdionMiguel A. AltieriSimon AndersonRobert Ian ArthurBajo RNRRC Project TeamPeter S. BakerPerfecto U. BartoliniCarlos S. BasilioWolfgang BayerThomas BeckerUlipkan BeketJeffery BentleyThomas BernetGuy BessetteStephen BiggsRaul BoncodinAnn R. BraunEnkhbat BulganDindo Campilan

Christian CastellanetGelia T. CastilloSalvatore CeccarelliWashington ChañiChun LaiNorman ClarkSusanne ClarkRichard CoeJavier CoelloCarol J. Pierce ColferRob CrambHugo de GrootePhilippe Paul Marie de LeenerAndre DevauxAdam G. DruckerSangay DubaMohammad Hossein EmadiMarise EspinelliElizabeth Fajber

Contributors

Acknowledgements ix

Steven FranzelEdson GandarillasCaroline Jane GarawayLaura GermanMahesh GhimirayJulian GonsalvesJohn GrahamStefania GrandoSabine GuendelFalguni GuharayBarun GurungJuergen HagmannAndrew HallJim HancockHerlina HartantoJon HellinDoug HendersonFidele HienMai Thach HoanhEric Holt-GimenezPeter M. HorneM. HossainMark HostetlerYanyong InmuongAshish Joshia Ingty JohnCyprian JumBernadette KeaneBounthanh KeoboualphaScott KilloughAnna KnoxCaterina Ruggeri LaderchiLilibeth LaranangLi XiaoyunBruce LinquistWilberth Trejo LizamaJoyce LuisMelissa MarschkeHarold J. McArthurCynthia McDougallRuth Meinzen-DickDon MesserschmidtMarco MiagostovichOswaldo MoralesMulawarmanBeda MwebesaAndreas NeefKim NongChris OpondoOscar OrtizOu GuowuAly OuedraogoThelma R. ParisJocelyn PerezDai PetersJulieta Moguel PliegoFe L. Porcincula

Ravi PrabhuKirsten ProbstPratiknyo PurnomosidhiQi GuboChris ReijCarla RochaDaniel RodriguezJames M. RoshetkoPer RudebjerJoseph RusikeIliana SalgadoNarumon SangpradubDaniel SelenerMoses SiambiJovita SimBertha SimmonsAbha SinghH.N. SinghSieglinde SnappHoumchitsavath SodarakSung Sil Lee SohngNhem SovannaCharles StaverAnn StroudWerner W. SturV. Rasheed SulaimanParvin SultanaSun QiuVongwiwat TanusilpPeter TaylorApolinar TayroPham Ngoc ThachNguyen Thi TinhGraham ThielePaul ThompsonEduardo TinkamSteve TwomlowNorman UphoffPaul Van MeleLaurens van VeldhuizenPaul VedeldRaj VermaRonnie VernooyAnnette von LossauAnn Waters-BayerWei XiaopingChesha WettasinhaJohn R. WitcombeMariana WongtschowskiEllen WoodleyNguyen The YenHijaba YkhanbaiB. YoganandYuan JuanwenLinda YulianiA.K.M. ZakariaZuo Ting

(full addresses, pages 216-221 of Volume 3)

x ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

Working Group


Carlos BasilioRaul BoncodinDindo Campilan

Hidelisa De ChavezJulian F. GonsalvesJoy R. Rivaca-Caminade

EditorsJoy R. Rivaca-Caminade (Managing Editor)Ivy DomingoBernadette JovenVivian Ledesma

Arlene ObmergaMa. Stella OliverButch PagcaliwaganSalvador Serrano

Illustrators


Ric CantadaAriel LucernaRia Elainne Mendoza

Donna Mallen ObusanJesus RecuencoBill Sta. Clara

Graphic Artists


Hannah K. CastanedaCharmaine Castaneda-LeynesGrant Laqui Leceta

Benabelle PiscoLibrado Ramos

Cover DesignFederico Dominguez


(full address, page 224 of Volume 3)

xiTable of Contents

Table of Contents

Participatory Research and Development: A Sourcebook Overview iiiAcknowledgements viiiTable of Contents x iUser’s Guide x v iIndex xix

VOLUME 1: UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1

Volume Overview 2

Typologies and Concepts 3

Definitions, Assumptions, Characteristics and Types of Farmer Participatory Research(Daniel Selener) 5

Prototypical Approaches to Innovation Development(Kirsten Probst and Jürgen Hagmann) 16

Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension(Scott Killough) 23

The Quality of Participation: Critical Reflections on Decision Making, Context and Goals(Ronnie Vernooy) 32

An Agroecological Basis for Natural Resource Management Among Poor Farmers in Fragile Lands(Miguel A. Altieri) 41

Participatory Research and Development in Natural Resource Management: Towards Social and Gender Equity(Elizabeth Fajber) 51

Understanding and Getting the Most from Farmers’ Local Knowledge(Jeffery W. Bentley and Peter S. Baker) 58

Indigenous Knowledge: A Conceptual Framework and a Case from Solomon Islands(Ellen Woodley) 65

Participatory Research Approaches: Some Key Concepts(Sung Sil Lee Sohng) 75

Property Rights, Collective Action and Technologies for Natural Resource Management(Anna Knox and Ruth Meinzen-Dick) 79

Innovation Systems Perspective: From Measuring Impact to Learning Institutional Lessons(Andrew Hall, V. Rasheed Sulaiman, Norman Clark and B. Yoganand) 87

Participatory Development Communication: Reinforcing the Participatory NRM Research and Action Process(Guy Bessette) 94

Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Research and Development: Some Key Elements(Ronnie Vernooy) 104

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation with Pastoralists(Ann Waters-Bayer, Wolfgang Bayer and Annette von Lossau) 113

Outcome Mapping: Striking a Balance Between Accountability and Learning(Raj K. Verma) 118

11111

22222

33333

44444

55555

66666

77777

88888

99999

1010101010

1111111111

1212121212

1313131313

1414141414

1515151515

xii ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

1616161616 Beyond the Problem-Solving Approach to Sustainable Rural Development(Ann R. Braun) 129

Participatory Methods in the Analysis of Poverty(Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi) 135

Rethinking the Development, Dissemination and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies(Rob Cramb) 145

Importance of Methodological Diversity in Research and Development Innovation Systems(Paul Van Mele and Ann R. Braun) 151

1717171717

Approaches 127

1818181818

1919191919

Participatory Technology Development 157

Farmer Innovation as Entry Point to Participatory Research and Extension(Chris Reij and Ann Waters-Bayer) 159

Participatory Technology Development Where There is No Researcher(Laurens van Veldhuizen, Ann Waters-Bayer and Chesha Wettasinha) 165

Developing Agricultural Solutions with Smallholder Farmers: How to Get Started with Participatory Approaches(Peter M. Horne and Werner W. Stur) 172

Participatory Market Chain Approach(Thomas Bernet, Andre Devaux, Oscar Ortiz and Graham Thiele) 181

Participatory Varietal Selection and Participatory Plant Breeding: The Last Ten Years(John R. Witcombe) 188

Decentralized Participatory Plant Breeding: A Case from Syria(Salvatore Ceccarelli and Stefania Grando) 193

2020202020

2121212121

2222222222

2323232323

2424242424

2525252525

Participatory Natural Resource Management 201

Participatory Natural Resource Management Research: A New Integration Domain in the Agricultural Sciences(Kirsten Probst and Jürgen Hagmann) 203

A Livelihood Systems Framework for Participatory Agricultural Research: The Case of UPWARD(Dindo Campilan) 212

Challenges of Participatory Natural Resource Management Research(Ronnie Vernooy, Hijaba Ykhanbai, Enkhbat Bulgan,Ulipkan Beket and John Graham) 220

Research Through Action with Nomadic Pastoralists in Iran(Mohammad Hossein Emadi) 228

Action Research as a Strategy for Advancing Community-Based Natural Resource Management(Doug Henderson) 235

Adaptive Collaborative Management(Carol J. Pierce Colfer, Herlina Hartanto, Cyprian Jum,Cynthia McDougall, Ravi Prabhu and Linda Yuliani) 241

2626262626

2727272727

2828282828

2929292929

3030303030

3131313131

xiiiTable of Contents

VOLUME 2: ENABLING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1

Volume Overview 2

Capacity Building 3

3232323232 Participatory Curriculum Development and Learner-Centered Education in Vietnam(Peter Taylor) 5

Participation and Networking for Better Agroforestry Education(Per Rudebjer) 14

Crafting Interdisciplinarity in Teaching Natural Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture(Paul Vedeld) 21

Interdisciplinary Work: Patterns and Practicalities(Gelia T. Castillo) 31

Evaluating Capacity for Participatory Research(Dindo Campilan, Jocelyn Perez, Jovita Sim and Raul Boncodin) 39

Participatory Research in the CGIAR(Thomas Becker) 48

3333333333

3434343434

35353535353636363636

3737373737

How Changed Relations Generate Impacts(Philippe Paul Marie de Leener) 61

Research Partnerships: Who Pays and Who Benefits(Gelia T. Castillo, Perfecto U. Bartolini and Fe L. Porcincula) 69

Developing Partnerships to Promote Local Innovation(Ann Wayers-Bayer, Laurens van Veldhuizen,Chesha Wettasinha and Mariana Wongtschowski) 74

Campesino a Campesino in Cuba: Agrarian Transformation for Food Sovereignty(Eric Holt-Gimenez) 84

Linking Farmers and Policymakers: Experiences from Kabale District, Uganda(Laura German, Ann Stroud, Chris Opondo and Beda Mwebesa) 89

Multi-Stakeholders Collaboration in Fighting a Sweetpotato Disease in the Philippines(Carlos S. Basilio, Lilibeth B. Laranang and Irene Adion) 96

Networking for Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Farmer-Centered Research: A Case from China(Qi Gubo, Li Xiaoyun, Zuo Ting and Ronnie Vernooy) 104

Facilitating Networks to Support Community-Based Natural Resource Management Processes in Cambodia(Kim Nong and Melissa Marschke) 111

3838383838

3939393939

4040404040

4141414141

4242424242

4343434343

4444444444

4545454545

Networking and Partnerships 59

Scaling Up and Institutionalization 119

A Framework for Scaling Up Research on Natural Resource Management(Sabine Guendel, Jim Hancock and Simon Anderson) 121

Contending Cultures Among Development Actors(Stephen Biggs, Don Messerschmidt and Barun Gurung) 126

Organizational Implications for Mainstreaming Participatory Research and Gender Analysis(Barun Gurung) 133

From Piloting to Scaling Up PR&D: Enabling Nepal Farmers to Grow a Healthy Potato Crop(Dindo Campilan) 139

4646464646

4747474747

4848484848

4949494949

xiv ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

Institutionalizing Participatory Technology Development(Laurens van Veldhuizen, Ann Waters-Bayer, Scott Killough, Marise Espineli and Julian Gonsalves) 147

Scaling Up Through Participatory Trial Designs(Sieglinde Snapp) 159

Beyond Integrated Pest Management: From Farm Households to Learning Capacity and Innovation Systems(Charles Staver and Falguni Guharay) 167

Institutionalizing Participatory Research in Renewable Natural Resources in Bhutan(Sangay Duba, Mahesh Ghimiray and the Bajo RNRRC Project Team) 176

Community-Based Natural Resource Management and its Scaling Up in Guizhou, China(Sun Qiu, Yuan Juanwen, Wei Xiaoping and Ou Guowu) 183

5050505050

5151515151

5252525252

5353535353

5454545454

VOLUME 3: DOING PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1

Volume Overview 2

Technology Development3

5555555555 Identifying Local Stakeholders’ Research Priorities: Methodological Challenges(Andreas Neef) 5

Using Participatory Tools in Setting Gender-Sensitive Criteria for Acceptable Rice Varieties in Eastern India(Thelma R. Paris, Abha Singh, H.N. Singh, Joyce Luis and M. Hossain) 11

Use of Perceptual Transects in Coastal Aquaculture and Fishery(Harold J. McArthur) 18

Development of a Farmer Recording System in Burkina Faso(Fidele Hien and Aly Ouedraogo) 26

Farmer Demonstration Trials: Promoting Tree Planting and Farmer Innovation in Indonesia(James M. Roshetko, Pratiknyo Purnomosidhi and Mulawarman) 32

Participatory On-Farm Technology Testing: The Suitability of Different Types of Trials for Different Objectives(Steven Franzel and Richard Coe) 40

Comparing and Integrating Farmers’ and Breeders’ Evaluations of Maize Varieties in East Africa(Hugo de Groote and Moses Siambi) 45

Putting the Economic Analysis of Animal Genetic Resources into Practice(Adam G. Drucker and Simon Anderson) 51

Upland Research in Lao PDR: Experiences with Participatory Research Approaches(Bruce Linquist, Bounthanh Keoboualpha, Houmchitsavath Sodarak,Peter Horne and Chun Lai) 58

The Innovation Tree: Visualizing Dynamics in the Community Innovation System(Paul Van Mele and A.K.M. Zakaria) 66

Supporting Campesino Experimentation on Livestock: An Example from South East Mexico(Julieta Moguel Pliego, Bernadette Keane, Susanne Clark,Wilberth Trejo Lizama and Simon Anderson) 72

Participatory Technology Development and Dissemination: Improving Pig Feed Systems in Vietnam(Dai Peters, Mai Thach Hoanh, Nguyen The Yen,Nguyen Thi Tinh and Pham Ngoc Thach) 83

5656565656

5757575757

5858585858

5959595959

6060606060

6161616161

6262626262

6363636363

6464646464

6565656565

6666666666

xvTable of Contents

Strengthening Local Organizations 117

From Concept to Impact: Developing and Communicating Multipurpose Seed Drying Tables in Bangladesh(Paul Van Mele and A.K.M. Zakaria) 91

Mother-Baby Trial Approach for Developing Soil, Water and Fertility Management Technologies(Joseph Rusike, Siegline Snapp and Steve J. Twomlow) 102

Analyzing Data from Participatory On-Farm Trials: Research and Participation(Richard Coe) 110

6767676767

6868686868

6969696969

7070707070 Development of the System of Rice Intensification in Madagascar(Norman Uphoff) 119

Community-Based Sustainable Environment Management Planning: Kudnamsai Water Quality Monitoring(Yanyong Inmuong, Narumon Sangpradub and Vongwiwat Tanusilp) 126

Forest Management Learning Group: Building Forest Users’ Capacities(Marco Miagostovich) 132

Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees as Complementary Platforms: New Challenges and Opportunities(Graham Thiele, Ann Braun and Edson Gandarillas) 142

The Kamayoq in Peru: Combining Farmer-to-Farmer Extension and Farmer Experimentation(Jon Hellin, Javier Coello, Daniel Rodriguez,Washington Chañi and Apolinar Tayro) 153

7171717171

7272727272

7373737373

7474747474

Multi-Stakeholder Based Natural Resource Management 157

Consensus Building for Community-Based Natural Resource Management(Parvin Sultana and Paul Thompson) 159

Limits of the “Negotiation Platform”: Two Cases on Participatory Municipal Planning on NRM in the Brazilian Amazon(Christian Castellanet, Iliana Salgado and Carla Rocha) 168

Participatory Land Use Planning and Governance in Ratanakiri, Cambodia(Ashish Joshia Ingty John and Nhem Sovanna) 175

Development and Implementation of a Resource Management Plan: Lessons from Caribbean Nicaragua(Mark Hostetler, Bertha Simmons, Oswaldo Morales and Eduardo Tinkam) 184

Learning in Action: A Case from Small Waterbody Fisheries in Lao PDR(Robert Ian Arthur and Caroline Jane Garaway) 191

Annex 199

Glossary 201Information Resources on Participatory Research and Development 206Contributors 216International Advisory Committee 222Working Group 223Production Staff 224

7575757575

7676767676

7777777777

7878787878

7979797979

xvi ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

User’s Guide

The main purpose of this sourcebook is to inspire and guide aspiring and newpractitioners of Participatory Research and Development (PR&D) to learn, reflectand constantly refine the way they work. The primary target users are field-basedresearchers in developing countries involved in activities dealing with theinterrelated issues of natural resource management, agriculture and rurallivelihoods. They may have technical or social science backgrounds but share acommon interest in drawing on the PR&D knowledge base.

The sourcebook is intended to enhance access to systematized information onfield-tested PR&D concepts and practices among field practitioners and theirorganizations. It responds to demands for wider sharing and dissemination of theexpanding knowledge on PR&D by:

1) identifying and consolidating field-tested PR&D concepts and practicesrelevant to managing natural resources for agriculture and rural livelihood,drawn from experiences of practitioners and organizations around theworld;

2) synthesizing, condensing and simplifying available information; and

3) promoting and improving availability of information particularly indeveloping countries where access to PR&D information resources islimited.

As a whole, the sourcebook is envisioned as a general reference and comprehensiveoverview, showcasing the rich diversity of perspectives on PR&D. The sourcebookis characterized by the following salient elements:

q Emphasis on information applicable to research and development-orientedactivities, complementing existing publications that primarily focus on theuse of participatory methods for extension, learning and communitymobilization.

q Broad topical coverage of the research and development process. As anintroductory guide to PR&D, it provides general orientation to the phasesor types of activities that are specifically covered by existing method- and/or tool-specific publications.

q Focus on the application of PR&D within the framework of conservationand sustainable use of natural resources. It consists of papers on fieldexperiences associated with natural resources use in agriculture and rurallivelihoods and/or agriculture and rural livelihoods that consciouslymaintain long-term productivity of the resource base.

xviiUser’s Guide

q An integrated socio-technical perspective that takes into account both thesocial/human and technological dimensions of innovation required fornatural resource management, sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods.

q Cross-cutting perspective of PR&D applications, encompassing varioustypes of natural resources, agricultural activities and rural livelihoods; thiscomparative mode of presenting information complements existingpublications that are specific to sub-categories of PR&D applications.

q A conscious effort to seek out papers dealing with lesser known projectsand organizations in developing countries, especially PR&D experiencesthat have not been (widely) published.

Sourcebook StructureThe printed version of the sourcebook consists of three volumes and each volumehas several sections. The first volume on Understanding PR&D is devoted tooverview papers; key concepts; and emerging approaches and frameworks. Thesecond volume on Enabling PR&D includes papers on capacity development;strengthening institutions and organizations; networking and partnerships; policy,governance and scaling up. The final volume on Doing PR&D focuses ontechnology development, facilitation of local institutions; and organization ofcommunities and stakeholder groups

The following more detailed framework was used by the advisory committee forassigning papers to one of the three volumes.

Understanding PR&D Enabling PR&D Doing PR&D

q history/evolution ofapproaches

q description ofapproaches

q definition of conceptsq explanation of

conceptsq interpretation of

concepts (casesillustrating concepts)

q reasons for doing PR&D

q institutionalizationq institutions and

organizationsq policy supportq capacity developmentq resource mobilizationq curriculum

developmentq partnerships and

networkingq organizational changeq interdisciplinarity

q monitoring and evaluationq organizational frameworksq implementing organizationsq case examples of PR&D

processes (assessment,experimentation,innovation)

q experiences with PR&Dmethods and tools

q PR&D researchmanagement

q learning from other sectorsq data analysis and

management

xviii ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

Sourcebook Development ProcessThe development of the sourcebook can be divided into three phases: 1) planning,2) drafting and 3) refinement, production and distribution.

An international advisory committee and an UPWARD-led working group wereformed to oversee the development of the sourcebook. The identification ofcandidate papers for inclusion in the sourcebook and the commissioning of newpapers from invited contributors received special attention during this first phase.To gather a diverse range of materials from a variety of institutions andindividuals, announcements were sent to different journals, newsletters, websitesand e-groups. Once an adequate range of draft materials was identified, a firstoutline for the sourcebook was developed by the UPWARD working group andreviewed by the advisory committee. The working group and advisory committeealso developed guidelines for the development of the sourcebook.

The second phase focused on the development of a first draft of the papercontributions. The UPWARD working group carried out a preliminary screeningand many of these materials consisted of existing papers written for differentpurposes and audiences. Specific suggestions on how to repackage papers weredeveloped by the working group. This was followed by a “writeshop” where paperswere repackaged to shorten and refocus them on key messages relevant toparticipatory research and development. Some papers were merged, and others weresplit into several shorter pieces. When topic gaps were identified a special effortwas made to search for papers or to solicit new contributions. The writeshopinvolved the UPWARD working group, editors, artists and layout specialists.After the writeshop, repackaged papers were sent back to the original authors fortheir feedback and comments. These comments guided the production staff in thedevelopment of second drafts. At the end of this process, each member of theadvisory committee was provided with a copy of the full manuscript for review.

The final phase covered the refinement, production and distribution of thesourcebook. The advisory committee met with the UPWARD working group,editors, and with representatives of collaborating and donor institutions. Thestructure of the sourcebook was refined, each paper was reviewed and new gaps inthe compilation were identified. Each member of the advisory committee tookresponsibility for identifying and inviting authors to develop specific papers to fillthe gaps. These new submissions were forwarded to the UPWARD working groupfor repackaging and finalization. Out of the 155 paper contributions screened, 79papers are included in this final compilation. A camera-ready copy of thesourcebook was prepared for final printing.

It is important to note that each article in the sourcebook is designed to stand onits own and can be read and used independently. The publishers and authors ofindividual papers encourage readers to quote, reproduce, disseminate and translatematerials from this sourcebook for their own use. Due acknowledgement, with fullreference to the article’s authors and the sourcebook publishers, is requested. Thepublishers would appreciate receiving a copy of these materials.

Index xix

Index

(Numbers refer to the paper number indicated at the upper right hand corner of thefirst page of each article.)

Adaptive collaborative management see Co-managementAdoption (technologies, innovations) 10, 18, 64Agro-ecology (development, principles) 5, 26, 41, 73Appreciative inquiry 16

Bangladesh 64, 67, 75“Best-bet” technologies (species) 2, 21, 59, 68Bhutan 53Brazil 21, 76Burkina Faso 58Burundi 84

Cambodia 45, 77Campesino-a-campesino see Farmer-to-farmer extensionCapacity development (building) 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 53Central source model see Transfer of technologyChina 44, 54Coastal management (fisheries, mangroves) 45, 57, 78, 79Co-management 28, 31, 75Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local (CIAL) 73Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 2, 37, 48Collective action 10, 28Common property resources 57Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) 26, 28, 30, 44, 45, 53, 54, 75, 77Constructivism 2, 4, 26Cuba 41Culture (worldview) 8, 47

Data management 92Decentralization 25, 77Dissemination (technology) see Extension;

Farmer-to-farmer extensionDownstream research 18, 26

Paper Numbers per Volume:

Volume 1: UNDERSTANDING Participatory Research and Development 1-31Volume 2: ENABLING Participatory Research and Development 32-54Volume 3: DOING Participatory Research and Development 55-79ONLINE & CD: Additional Readings on Participatory Research and Development 80-94

xx ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

Ethics 13, 55Expectations 4, 17, 55Extension 3, 18, 52 (see also Farmer-to-farmer)

Facilitation 3, 29, 72, 73, 87Farmer experimentation/research/trials 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, 22, 37, 59, 65, 74, 80Farmer Field School 72, 73, 91Farmer knowledge see Indigenous knowledgeFarmer-to-farmer extension (communication, training) 3, 20, 41, 65, 66, 74Fishery resource management 57Forest management group/ User Group Committee (FUGC) 31, 72Forestry (agro-; social-; small-holder) 32, 33, 59, 63, 89

Gardening (allotment) 86Gender (analysis) 6, 48, 56, 67Geographic Information System (GIS) 83“Going public” 19, 67Green Revolution 2, 5

Impact assessment see Participatory monitoring and evaluation

India 15, 56, 88, 80Indigenous knowledge 1, 5, 7, 8, 67, 89Indonesia 59Innovation (systems) 2, 11, 19, 20, 21, 40, 52, 64, 70Institutionalization see Scaling up/outIntegrated disease/pest management 49, 52, 73Integrated natural resource see Community-based natural management (INRM) resource managementInter (cross-; multi-; trans-)disciplinarity 1, 34, 35Iran 29

Kenya 61, 84, 91

Lao PDR 63, 79Learning (adaptive-; transformative-) 6, 28, 79, 87, 91Livelihood systems framework 27Livestock (management; feeding; disease) 62, 65, 66, 74, 85, 90

Madagascar 70Mainstreaming see Scaling up/outMarket chain analysis 23, 66Methodological diversity 19Mexico 62, 65Mongolia 28Mother-baby trials 51, 56, 61, 68 (see also Trial-)Multiple source of innovation model 3, 18

Nepal 31, 49, 72Networking 33, 41, 44, 45Nicaragua 28, 52, 78Niger 38

Outcome mapping 15 (see also Participatory monitoring and evaluation)

Index xxi

Participatory curriculum development 32, 33Participatory (development) communication 9, 12, 78Participatory monitoring and evaluation, and impact assessment 13, 14, 20, 36, 44, 50, 63, 75, 93, 94Participatory (resource use) planning 71, 75, 76, 77Participatory plant breeding see Participatory variety selection/

evaluationParticipatory rural appraisal (tools) 55, 56, 57, 58, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90Participatory variety selection/evaluation 24, 25, 56, 61, 66Participatory technology development (PTD) 2, 18, 20, 21, 22, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58,

59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68,69, 91, 94

Partnerships 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 81Pastoralism 14, 28, 29Peru 23, 74Philippines 18, 27, 36, 43, 57, 81, 83, 92Pigs 62, 66Platform (negotiation-) 9, 73, 76Positivism 2, 26Potato 23, 49Poverty analysis 17Power relations 4, 6Principles of good practice 4, 28Professional genre 38Property rights 10

Rice 56, 64, 67, 70

Scaling up/out 5, 25, 31, 32, 40, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,51, 52, 53, 54, 63, 66, 67, 82, 83, 91

Shifting cultivation 88Solomon Islands 8Stakeholder analysis/collaboration 42, 43, 55, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79Sudan 85Strategic research see Upstream researchSweetpotato 27, 43, 66, 81, 92Syria 25

Thailand 55, 71Transfer of technology (model) 1, 2, 5, 16, 33Trial (design, evaluation) 51, 59, 60, 69Typology of participation 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 80

Uganda 16, 42United Kingdom 86Upstream research 18, 26

Veterinary research 85Vietnam 32, 55, 66, 72, 75

Water (quality) management 53, 71

Zambia 17, 60, 89Zimbabwe 87

This page intentionally left blank

Volume 2ENABLING

Participatory Researchand Development

2 ENABLING Participatory Research and Development

Volume Overview

Participatory research and development (PR&D) does not just happen on its own, and formany individuals and organizations – be they researchers, communities or government — itmeans a major change in the way research and development in natural resourcemanagement is done. Researchers may find themselves lacking certain skills and capacities,and they may receive l itt le support, encouragement, or incentives to integrate PR&Dapproaches. Factors that enable researchers and other actors to implement PR&D are ascritical as the understanding of concepts and tools.

A crucial enabling factor is the institutionalization of mechanisms to develop the capacity ofresearchers. Strengthening the education and curriculum development of PR&D in agricultureand natural resource management training institutions ensures that new capacities will bemuch more widespread. Targeting young researchers at early stages to employ participatoryapproaches will facilitate a shift in the way research is done, so that ‘beneficiaries’ canbecome ‘actors’. Such capacity development strategies should also recognize that researchersneed support not only in concepts and approaches, but also in practice where they arefaced with the on-the-ground challenges of implementation.

Researchers generally are not working in isolation, and are rooted within the organization inwhich they work. In order to implement PR&D, researchers need to have space and supportwithin their organization, and the stimulus of incentives. In addition to the personal changesrequired to embrace participatory methods, the ethos and culture of an organization itselfmust shift to endorse and encourage PR&D. Similarly, people must work together for its effectiveimplementation, building networks and partnerships at different levels: with communities, withgovernment, and with other researchers. This not only requires multi-stakeholder involvement,but also interdisciplinary approaches, integrating social and biophysical sciences.

Enabling policies can facilitate the institutionalization of participatory approaches to research,management, and monitoring in agriculture and natural resources on a wider scale. In somecases, learning from successful experiences of PR&D approaches, governments have scaledup and out, incorporating these approaches in decentralized policies for natural resourcemanagement.

This volume offers a number of papers describing concepts and experiences of researchersand other social actors in enabling participatory research and development. The papersexplore the following areas:

q Capacity Buildingq Networking and Partnershipsq Scaling Up and Institutionalization

We hope these papers wil l emphasize the fundamental importance of strategies andmechanisms to enable PR&D for its effectiveness and sustainability.

CapacityBuilding

Participatory Curriculum Development andLearner-Centered Education in Vietnam 5

ince 1986, Vietnam has been going through a period of considerableeconomic, political and social change with the introduction of theGovernment's renovation (doi moi) policies. There has been increasing emphasisplaced on the market economy, decentralization, democracy and cooperation(Helvetas, 2003). These wider policy reforms have had a profound impactacross all sectors. Forestry, in particular, has become a key focus forimprovement, in an effort to meet up with the challenges confronting theupland areas of the country. To address these challenges and in keeping withwider reforms, state-managed forestry began a shift towards "social forestry"or "people's forestry" (lam nghiep xa hoi), which refers to forestry of the peoplecarried out by local people for their own benefit. The State recognizes thatfarmers, previously regarded as responsible for forest destruction, are now thepotent force who can best protect the forests and secure the best use of theforest land.

This emerging situation is creating a growing need for well-trained people tofulfill the new institutional requirements of the forestry sector. A new form ofeducation and training for forestry is needed to prepare people in accepting andsupporting the concept and practice of shared responsibility among ruralhouseholds, extension services, research institutes, universities and theGovernment. An interdisciplinary capacity encourages an understanding of socialprinciples and processes among foresters and extensionists.

S

Participatory CurriculumDevelopment and Learner-Centered Education in Vietnam

3232323232


Forestry training programs then need to become more relevant and flexible,diverse and yet well integrated. A wide range of stakeholders are emerging withdifferent interests in what forestry education can and should achieve (Helvetas,2003). The participation of different stakeholders in meaningful ways in forestryand in forestry education has become vital. Hence, a framework is requiredthrough which participation can be facilitated. This can be provided byparticipatory curriculum development, following a learner-centered educationapproach.

Participatory Curriculum Development: Linking Theoryand PracticeCurriculum development provides an excellent basis for a systemic approach toteaching and learning. It may be defined broadly as "all the learning which isplanned and guided by a training or teaching organization, whether it is carriedout in groups or individually, inside or outside a classroom, in an institutionalsetting or in a village or field" (Rogers and Taylor, 1998). It takes intoconsideration the learning which the students achieve, the activities andexperiences which bring about the learning, the process of planning andorganizing these activities and experiences and documentation of the wholeprocess.

Since, ultimately, curriculum development is about people, not about paper,the participation of stakeholders in curriculum development is critical. Thereis a growing evidence from many countries that establishing a participatoryapproach to curriculum development (PCD) improves the effectiveness andsustainability of training courses by creating partnerships between trainers,participants and others who have an interest in the training and its outcomes(Taylor, 2003).

PCD aims to develop a curriculum from the interchanges of experience andinformation between the various stakeholders in an education and trainingprogram (Rogers and Taylor, 1998). Participation in curriculum developmentincreases motivation, commitment and ownership of the learning process byteachers, students or trainees, community members and policymakers alike. Bycreating opportunities for networking, groups and individuals normallymarginalized may become included in negotiations and dialogue, allowingfurther discussion and reflection on context, theory, action and values. Aframework for the PCD approach is shown in Figure 1 (Taylor, 2003).

Unfortunately, curriculum development is often neither systemic nor participatory.In many contexts, it occurs in an ad hoc and reactive manner, and is largely expert-led and hierarchical. Involvement of learners, teachers and other key stakeholderssuch as rural community members in the curriculum development process hasoften been minimal or non-existent. Centrally- or urban-produced curricula havefailed, over and over again, to acknowledge the diversity and range of needs whichare characteristics of learners who live or work in a rural context.

Participatory Curriculum Developm

ent andLearner-Centered Education in Vietnam

7

C: Plan and developdetailed curricula

Based on curriculumframeworks:

q Develop specificlearning outcomes

q Develop/writedetailed content

q Identify and prepareIearning materials

q Identify learningmethods

q Develop assessment/evaluation instruments

B: Develop curriculum outlines orframeworks

q Review the existing curriculum based onresults of Training Needs Assessment (TNA)

q Develop curriculum aims, main learningoutcomes, main topics, main content areas

q Provide overview of the methods to beused, and resources required

E: Develop and refine PCDevaluation system

Develop and refine monitoringand evaluation (M&E) system toaddress:

q Stakeholder participationq Teacher performanceq Student performanceq Impact of training

D: Deliver/use new curricula

q Plan and apply active and experientialteaching and learning methods

q Develop and use learner-centeredmaterials for teaching and learning

q Implement new curricula with groups ofstudents/trainees, evaluate and adaptcurricula as required

A: Situation analysis/training needs analysis

q Identify main reasons and purpose of curriculumdevelopment and key areas for curriculum change

q Identify expected constraining and enabling factorsinside and outside the institution

q Introduce concept of PCDq Carry out initial stakeholder analysis and identify/

validate specific stakeholders who may be involvedin this process, and what roles they may play

q Discuss potential for application of PCD in institutionq Identify organizational issues which need to be

addressed for curriculum change to go aheadq Develop first version of a monitoring and evaluation

system for PCDq Plan and carry out training needs assessment (TNA),

consolidate results, obtain feedback on resultsq Identify range of Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes (KSA)

requiredq Outline main steps for action Stakeholder

involvement

Maintain PCDprocess

Adapted from Taylor, 2003

Figure 1. A Framework for Participatory Curriculum Development Approach


Those working in dynamic contexts such as forestry and agriculture in ruraldevelopment often find themselves unable to respond and adapt to new realities asthey emerge, because their formal training has not prepared them for thischallenge. At the institutional level, many universities fail to show strategies foreffective learning that they themselves have developed or implemented. Teachingand learning are often teacher-centered resulting in a passive experience for thelearners that, ultimately, is ineffective. But this situation can change, as experienceshows from the Social Forestry Support Program (SFSP) in Vietnam.

Putting PCD and Learner-Centered Education intoPractice in the SFSPThe concepts of PCD and learner-centered education were well-received andacknowledged as priority areas by SFSP.Building on existing and new capacitiesof the partner institutions and their staff,SFSP supported not only thedevelopment, delivery and evaluation ofnew curricula but also a wide range offield-based learning activities such asparticipatory technology development(PTD) and participatory rural appraisal(PRA). Many opportunities were providedfor developing an understanding of the"reality" of forest land management, as well as creating the possibility forinteraction with a wide range of stakeholders in social forestry. Learnings from thefield through extension and research activities helped to adapt the content of thecurricula developed in the universities.

Through a participatory process involving the collaboration of all partners, andbased on the results of training needs assessments and field-based learningexperiences, seven new social forestry-related subjects were developed for teachingin five universities. Great importance was attributed to the delivery of curricula,through the building of capacity of teachers to follow a learner-centered approachto education. This was supported by a framework (Figure 2) which establishedclear links between the learning outcomes (identified through participatorytraining needs analyses), the content of the curriculum, and the teaching andlearning methods and materials employed.

Teachers received extensive training and support in the use of learner-centeredteaching methodologies such as group work, visualization, making presentationsand using case studies and role plays (Batliner, 2002).

Learning how to use such methods and actually applying them are two differentthings, however. Some teachers said that they found it difficult to introduce thesealternative methods due to large class sizes, poor facilities and unwillingness bystudents to cooperate in a style of teaching and learning which might reduce theamount of content dealt with in a lesson.

The need to support the change in forestryeducation in Vietnam was the basis of theSFSP, a cooperation program betweenthe Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development (MARD), the Ministry ofEducation and Training (MoET) and theSwiss Agency for Development andCooperation. Implemented by Helvetas,Swiss Association for InternationalCooperation, the SFSP ran for eight years,from 1994 to 2002. It evolved from an initialstrategy of building capacity by linkingtraining, research and extension activitiesto an integrated program involvinghuman resources development,generation of knowledge and informationexchange (Helvetas, 2003).


Figure 2. Framework for Learner-Centered Approach to Education (Taylor, 2003)

Curriculum

Learning outcomes

Content

Learningmaterials

Teaching andlearningmethods

There was a clear need for concentrated, classroom-based follow-up support toteachers as they began to develop and utilize learner-centered teaching methods. Aprogram of classroom observation was initiated, followed by the establishmentof teacher "quality groups", which provided critical but non-threatening supportto innovative practices in the classrooms. This contributed also to the emergenceof a quality monitoring system (Helvetas, 2003).

Using learner-centered methods andmaterials, the new subjects weretaught and evaluated by teachers,students and other stakeholders,and updated and revised asneeded. In addition, a socialforestry major was developed andhas been implemented at theForestry University of Vietnam,Xuan Mai. Numerous shortcourses were designed and run byall the university partners withsupport from SFSP, as well as bythe Hoa Binh ProvincialDepartment of Agriculture andRural Development.


Outcomes of the ApproachAlthough SFSP has a relatively recent history, much was achieved, including thefollowing successes:

q development of new forestry curriculaq establishment of linkages and networks among education, research and

extension institutionsq generation and sharing of informationq discussion and debates on the complex concepts and approaches by

different stakeholdersq concentration of the alternative and innovative methods and materials on

the need for learning rather than teaching requirements (Batliner, 2002)q formation of a network of lecturers/promoters of social forestryq a sense of ownership of the PCD process by the working partners that

served as an affirmation that this approach has presented manyopportunities for learning at different levels of the education system(students, teachers, faculties,universities, ministries)

It is still early to assess the impact of thePCD approach on the students' actualperformance in their workplace, but thelevel of satisfaction on the coursesdeveloped and delivered seems high.Many stakeholders believe that theimprovement in the forestry curriculumand the teaching/learning approach willindeed enable those working in theforestry sector in the future to work moreeffectively.

Insights, Challenges and StrategiesEvidence suggests that PCD and learner-centered education approaches havebrought about real benefits to forestry education in Vietnam (Schneider, 2002).But there were challenges too.

Insights and Challengesq PCD entailed more time and resources

compared with more traditional, systematicapproaches to curriculum development.

q Communication was difficult due to thegeographic distance among the stakeholders.

q Incentives, which could have motivated the stakeholders to share andexchange information, were insufficient or not well recognized. Inaddition, commitment varied among stakeholders.

Obviously, if a PCDapproach is only possiblewhen time and resources(both human and financial)are virtually unlimited then itwill become unsustainable,and have little applicabilityin most other contexts.

The use of improved pedagogicalmethods by the lecturers teaching socialforestry gradually increased, through:

q more active and participatory pedagogy(learner-centered teaching methods)

q use of teaching/learning materials(handouts, transparencies, photos, videos,posters)

q knowledge and skills in how to teach largeclasses

q increased importance of field-basedlearning

q preparation and use of specific casestudies

q application of methods for analyzingteaching skills, including lesson planningand classroom observation


q Building partnerships among the stakeholders was often a difficult task aseach group was not adequately represented.

q Teachers needed not only to learn from the field, but also to integrate whatthey learned into the curriculum.

q The shift from a process-oriented approach to one where key outcomeswere needed and monitored was cumbersome. This affected aspects ofplanning and implementation, and discouraged the establishment of aneffective monitoring system.

q There was insufficient knowledge on the use of inputs and real costs(time, resources, etc.) of education-related interventions in relation to theactual outcomes, leading to a perceived inefficiency in the program.

Strategies to Address ChallengesA number of strategies were tested in SFSP to counter these challenges which mayhave value for other contexts and institutions that follow a similar approach.

q Building capacity in the application of PCD methods and approaches,through an extensive training program, with special emphasis on attitudes.

q Management of stakeholderinvolvement, through articulationof expectations, regularopportunities for reflection, andcareful and realistic action planning.

q Developing an understanding ofthe institutional and policy contextfor forestry, natural resourcesmanagement and education,through establishing goodworking relations with differentstakeholders at all levels ofthe system.

q Ensuring that educational experiences and interventions provided by theSFSP in the early stages of the program were both effective andappropriate.

q Supporting the SFSP partners in identifying and articulating their ownneeds more clearly as the program developed with swift and effectiveresponses to these newly articulated needs and demands.

q Developing a sense of familiarity and empathy with colleagues anddifferent stakeholders.


Relevance of the Approach to Other SituationsIs the PCD approach relevant for forestry education institutions in other contextsin Vietnam and beyond?

PCD, by nature, is flexible and dynamic. There is no blueprint. This means thatthe approach lends itself extremely well to local adaptation, especially since localstakeholders may be very influential in the evolution of the process. The key tothe relative success of PCD in the Vietnamese context has not been the supply ofexpensive facilities or physical resources, but seems instead to have been related tothe nature of the support to individuals within institutions, and theresponsiveness of this support to their needs.

PCD and learner-centered education are already being taken up more widely inVietnam. Students, institutional stakeholders (researchers, extensionists, managers,policymakers) and targeted beneficiaries (farmers, community leaders andorganizations) are aware of the change in approach to forestry education and areappreciative of it. MARD and MoET recognize these achievements as highlysignificant and in line with their overall change of programs and policies. Theyhave recently initiated two important activities:

q A PCD approach isbeing exploredby MoET as thebasis fordevelopment of"curriculumstandards" for alldegrees inVietnameseuniversities.

q MARD isimplementing aseries oftrainingworkshops forrepresentatives ofall its professional andvocational schools in "learner-centered teaching methods".

Initiatives such as this make the possibility of scaling up more likely. The buildingof capacity of the stakeholders to support the learning processes more effectivelyshould have a long-term, positive impact on the development of the forestrysector in Vietnam. Hopefully, this will, in the future, provide a sound basis forworking to support the development needs of local communities in the fields ofagriculture and forestry.


ReferencesBatliner, R. 2002. SFSP Teaching Methodology Handbook: Learner-Centered Teaching Methods,

Instructional Supervision, Facilitation Skills for Rural Development. Hanoi: SDC/HelvetasViet Nam/Swisscontact.

Helvetas. 2002. 10 Key Stages Towards Effective Participatory Curriculum Development - Learningfrom Practice and Experience in the Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam, and OtherHelvetas-supported Projects. Experience and Learning in International Cooperation No. 2.Zurich: Helvetas.

Helvetas. 2003. The Social Forestry Support Programme, Vietnam, 1994-2002. Capitalization of 8Years of Experiences. Hanoi: Helvetas.

Rogers, A. and P. Taylor. 1998. Participatory Curriculum Development in Agricultural Education. ATraining Guide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Schneider, F. 2002. Review of the Participatory Curriculum Development (PCD) of the SocialForestry Support Programme (SFSP). October 7-19, 2002, Vietnam. Mission Report,December 2002.

Taylor, P. 2003. How to Design a Training Course - A Guide to Participatory CurriculumDevelopment. London: VSO/Continuum.

Contributed by:Peter TaylorEmail: [email protected]

Participatory Research andDevelopment for SustainableAgriculture and Natural ResourceManagement: A Sourcebook


griculture and forestry educational systems traditionally applied a top-downand didactic or teacher-centered approach to knowledge generation and transfer.Lecturers and university leaders spent years of their own education and career insuch systems, which influence university structures, curricula and teachingapproaches. This hierarchical model is illustrated in Figure 1.

A

Participation and Networking forBetter Agroforestry Education

3333333333

Ministry ofEducation,

University Council

CurriculumDevelopment

Committee

Lectures

Students

Research and Development Education

Awareness ofdevelopment

problem

Research

Extension and‘scaling-up’

Adoption

Policymakers

Scientists

ExtensionStaff

Farmers

Perception ofneeds for human

capacity

Curriculumdevelopment

Teaching

Learning

Figure 1. A Model for Knowledge Generation and Transfer

Participation and Networking forBetter Agroforestry Education 15

Additional observations related to this hierarchical model are the following:

q The parallel route in research and development(R&D) deals with technology development andtransfer, while in the educational system, this isthe flow of knowledge and skills.

q The top-down line of command, with problemdefinition at the top, aims to create change at thelowest level--the receiver.

q The feedback loop is missing.

q The links between the R&D and educationalsystems are weak.

q The R&D chain has an institutional divide, where eachstep is the responsibility of a separate organization.

Agriculture R&D evolved towards participatory approaches and recognition oflocal knowledge after realizing the shortcomings of this model. Looking at theeducation process, pedagogic or learning theory suggests that adults:

q have different styles of learningq are self-directedq learn more effectively when they undergo and reflect on an experience,

draw generalizations and apply what they have learnedq can learn from each other's experiences, and need interactive training

methods (Taylor, 2003)

This learner-centered participatory approach ineducation is in stark contrast to the reality inmany universities today. This paper discusseshow the Southeast Asian Network forAgroforestry Education (SEANAFE) used aparticipatory approach in strengtheningagroforestry education programs since 1999. Thenetwork has more than 70 member institutionsin Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Thailandand Vietnam.

Why Does Agroforestry Require Participation?Agroforestry is growing trees on farms. Farmers in the tropics use a range ofagroforestry options as part of livelihood strategies. Their decision-makingdepends on a range of factors: biophysical and socio-economics.

The environmental impact of farming practices matters. These impacts are local,such as effect on soil fertility, or external, with bearing on the environment:watershed functions, biodiversity, climate change and landscape beauty.

The SEANAFE and the AfricanNetwork for Agroforestry Education(ANAFE), a sister network with morethan 130 members in 34 countries,are linked with the WorldAgroforestry Center (ICRAF). Bothnetworks are important actors inthe building of institutionalcapacity for agroforestry research,development and education inSoutheast Asia and Africa usingparticipatory approaches.


Agroforestry goes beyond commodities like rice, maize or timber. It is also abouthow the landscape works and interacts with its inhabitants and other stakeholders,whether positive, negative or neutral. Scale also matters, as agroforestry covers treesand plots, the farm, watersheds, as well as the national, regional and global levels.

Agroforestry education, therefore, requires a broad spectrum of knowledge andskills from a range of sciences, including agriculture, forestry, sociology,economics, policy, etc. It is rare to find all these competencies within a faculty oreven in an institution. Wider collaboration is essential in advancing agroforestryeducation. Networking educational institutions proved to be an efficient tool forcollaboration among disciplines (Temu et al., 2001).

Agroforestry Networks for Educational Change

Principles of Participatory Curriculum DevelopmentSEANAFE realized that institutional collaboration within the Southeast Asiawould benefit the development of agroforestry education programs. Curriculumdevelopment was a top priority and a logical starting point in all countries.

Given the complex and integrated natureof agroforestry science, the networkopted for a participatory approach tocurriculum development. TheParticipatory Curriculum Development(PCD) method had already provedsuccessful in some institutions of thenetwork, and was considered suitable forthe regional network.

Stakeholders are involved in each of theinteracting steps of the PCD cycle andstakeholder analysis is a key element ofPCD. The analysis answers questionslike:

q Who are the stakeholders of the agroforestry education program?q What are their importance and influence?q What are their roles in the different steps of the PCD cycle?

A simple stakeholder analysis using cards quickly lists and ranks stakeholders andidentifies their roles. The importance and influence matrix in Figure 2 takes thestakeholder analysis a step further by positioning stakeholders accordingly. Forexample, it highlights the need for paying special attention to stakeholders withhigh importance but low influence in the curriculum development process (Rogersand Taylor, 1998).

Five Steps in the PCD Cycle Forming aContinuum Rather than a Linear Pattern

1. Situation analysis - including trainingneeds assessment

2. Aims - giving guidance and direction tothe learning

3. Planning - objectives, content,methods, materials, time

4. Implementation - managing anddelivering the program

5. Evaluation - assessment and monitoring


Figure 2. The Importance and Influence Matrix

Participatory Curriculum Development for Agroforestry EducationSEANAFE initiated the regional review of agroforestry curricula through thedevelopment and production of a Guide to Learning Agroforestry (Rudebjer et al.,2001). Although regional collaboration is essential in addressing issues of thismagnitude, educational change takes place at the institutional level. Only theapproval and effective implementation of a new curriculum creates an impact onthe teaching and learning process. National adaptation of the guide was needed.

SEANAFE followed up the regional curriculum development work with activitiesat the national and institutional levels. Each level involved different sets ofparticipants, as shown in Table 1. Lecturers who participated in the initial regionalworkshop provided the continuity in sharing their knowledge and skills about thePCD approach with colleagues at the national and institutional levels.

Low Influence High Influence

HighImportance

LowImportance

Table 1. Participants in the Curriculum Development Process

Level

Regional

National

Institutional

Participants

q Agroforestry lecturersq University leadersq Employersq Former studentsq Non-Government

Organizationsq World Agroforestry

Center (ICRAF)q Helvetas Social

Forestry SupportProgram (SFSP),Vietnam

q As above, withnational variations

q Policymakersq Farmers’

representatives (insome cases)

q Varied, dependingon the institutionalsetting

Process

q Regional PCDworkshop to developcurriculum framework

q Regional writingworkshop to edit thedraft

q National PCDworkshop to validateand adapt theregional guide

q Team of teachersfrom differentinstitutions writing thenational curriculumguide

q Development andreview of agroforestrycourses andprograms

Products

q Regionalagroforestrycurriculum guide

q Nationalagroforestrycurriculumframeworks in locallanguage

q Recommendationsto changes innationalagroforestrycurricula

q Revised universitycourses andprograms


Implementing the Education ChangeAs in the example on agroforestry curriculum development, SEANAFE worked atregional, national and institutional levels to support the change process. Similarly,collaboration strengthened other elements of the education process, especiallytraining of trainers and developing teaching materials. Policy advocacy was alsoaddressed.

This web of collaborations and partnerships resulted in a range of national andregional products and outcomes. Participation enhanced the quality of theresulting products, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Participatory Processes in Educational Change

Participation Process

q Regional collaborationamong universities toaddress issues of regionalsignificance

q Links with internationalorganizations for resourcemobilization andexchange of knowledgeand information

q National networking todefine issues andconstraints andcollaborate towards theirsolutions

q Universities and collegescollaborate to adapt andtranslate curricula, trainteachers and developtraining materials

q Jointly approachingpolicymakers regardingagroforestry educationissues

q Several disciplinesparticipate in theinstitutional curriculumdevelopment process

q Team-teaching acrossfaculties/departments

q Joint development ofteaching tools andmethods

q Communityrepresentativesparticipate in PCD

q Teaching and learning on-farm/with farmers

q Multi-disciplinary researchon farms

q Agroforestry demonstrationplots established onfarmers' fields

Outcome/Product

q Network publications, likethe regional Guide toLearning Agroforestry

q Access to globalknowledge resources

q Resources mobilized fromdonors

q A national mechanism forcollaboration onagroforestry education

q The curriculum frameworkwas adapted andtranslated in five countries

q Teachers are trained,relevant teachingmaterials available

q Policymakers sensitized

q More relevant andharmonized curricula

q The teaching andlearning processenhanced by input fromdifferent departments

q Appropriate teachingmaterials

q Farmers' views and needscaptured in curricula

q Local knowledgerecognized in educationprograms

q Relevant researchprojects implemented

q Farmers’ involvement indemonstration plotsincreased their relevance

Between individuals,(teachers, students)farmers andcommunities

Type of Participation

Among institutions inthe region

Among institutionswithin a country

Among departmentsand faculties withinan institution


Lessons from Networking and Participation inAgroforestry EducationThe lessons learned from networking and participation in agroforestry educationare highlighted below:

q There is a great interest among lecturers to movetowards a more participatory curriculumdevelopment and learner-centeredteaching andlearningprocesses.Outsideinfluence isimportant instimulating suchchange, likecollaborationwithinternationalorganizations,developmentprojects andother keystakeholders.

q Enthusiastic key persons - active lecturers or faculty leaders - are essentialin implementing change within the institution. Although this is aboutinstitutional change, key individuals have to be identified and involved.

q Collaboration with farmers and communities were embedded in many waysin the PCD cycle. Sometimes, farmers participated in curriculumdevelopment workshops. More commonly, institutions conducted teachingand learning activities with farmers. One innovation was to establishagroforestry demonstration plots on farmers' fields, rather than on campus.Thesis research on farms was common in agroforestry education programs.Such activities can trigger increased participation with communities.

q A regional network can be very effective in catalyzing change. Together,institutions stand stronger than they would on their own. They can jointlyconduct a situational analysis, identify priority issues, mobilize resourcesbetter and develop strategic solutions.

q National level networks are important in validating and adapting regionalprinciples to the national context and language. This is especially the casegiven the great diversity among countries in Southeast Asia. Nationalnetworks are better positioned to influence national policies.


Contributed by:Per RudebjerEmail: [email protected]

q Within an institution, it is important to involve lecturers from differentuniversity units in developing and implementing agroforestry education. Itis rare for one faculty to have the range of competencies required inlearning agroforestry.

ReferencesRogers, A. and P. Taylor 1998. A Guide To Participatory Curriculum Development in Agricultural

Education. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

Rudebjer, P., P. Taylor, R.A. Del Castillo (eds.) 2001. A Guide to Learning Agroforestry. AFramework for Developing Agroforestry Curricula in Southeast Asia. Training and EducationReport No. 51. ICRAF. Bogor, Indonesia.

Taylor, P. 2003. How To Design A Training Course. A Guide To Participatory CurriculumDevelopment. VSO Books.

Temu, A.B., P.G. Rudebjer and I. Zoungrana. 2001. Networking Educational Institutions forChange: The Experience of ANAFE. ICRAF. Nairobi, Kenya.


21Crafting Interdisciplinarity in Teaching Natural ResourceManagement and Sustainable Agriculture

Crafting Interdisciplinarity inTeaching Natural ResourceManagement andSustainableAgriculture

N atural resource management (NRM) and sustainable agriculture rest onprinciples of ecosystem dynamics, adequate legal frameworks and property rightsarrangements, and respect for customs and traditions governing resource accessand use. It also involves understanding economic behavior, resource use andconstraints, the costs and benefits of different resource use arrangements andinformation flows, and the effect of policies at the macro level. NRM centersaround people, institutions, land and nature, giving rise to environment anddevelopment issues that require complex theoretical, conceptual and practicalknowledge from diverse sources.

Students of NRM cannot, in our experience, adequately address a particularenvironmental management problem without having insight in both natural andsocial sciences. Likewise, educators need a genuinely interdisciplinary perspectiveand a substantial problem-based approach to meet the challenge of educating“environmental experts”.

This paper discusses the experience andchallenges of designing andimplementing an educational program inNRM and sustainable agriculture in theAgricultural University of Norway(NLH) where interdisciplinarity is animportant ambition.

Adapted from:Vedeld, P. 2004. Crafting Interdisciplinarityin Teaching Management of NaturalResources and Sustainable Agriculture:Experiences from the M.Sc. Program inManagement of Natural Resources andSustainable Agriculture, NLH. NoragricWorking Paper No. 33. Noragric: AgriculturalUniversity of Norway.

3434343434


Understanding InterdisciplinarityThe old academic model centered on a single tutor who possessed the breadth anddepth of knowledge to teach students in all fields. This is hardly tenable today.More recent history of science describes a revolution in terms of increasedknowledge generated in an exponentially expanding number of disciplines andsub-disciplines. The environment and development field, for example, hasexploded over the last 20 years with inputs from a variety of sciences and researchfields, with a cacophony of approaches, theories, methods and models.

Multi-disciplinary research activities are widespread. A particular research field ortopic is commonly approached by many different scientists from a variety ofdifferent disciplines but such efforts are rarely coordinated. Scientists oftencompare findings on the same topics from different disciplines, most oftenconcentrating on empirical discoveries, and less frequently on comparisons ofmore basic theoretical and methodological matters. Multi-disciplinarity oftenbecomes “the mother of inter-disciplinarity” in the sense that researchers initiallybecome interested in empirical findings generated in other sciences, and thenbecome inspired to develop more sophisticated approaches, utilizing bothempirical findings and more theoretical and methodological perspectives.

Program Context

The Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture (MNRSA) program ofthe Agricultural University of Norway started in 1986. Its overall aim is to contribute to amore sustainable development path in developing countries by enhancing academiccompetence and capacity of relevant institutions and individuals in natural resourceand agricultural planning and management. The output of the program has beengraduates with M.Sc. degree in MNRSA and specialized in areas relevant for work in theirhome countries.

The major theoretical goal is to develop a fruitful combination of theoretical knowledgeand experience-based approaches that contributes towards better understanding of“nature-society relationships”. The major proficiency goal is that such knowledge shouldenable institutions and candidates to interpret and be able to generate practicalprocesses of social change in terms of empowerment, equitability and sustainability.The program also includes an attitude goal of developing the ability of students to thinkcritically and analytically.

Structure and ProcessThe MNRSA is taught over four semesters. The first semester is multi-disciplinary — studentsare introduced to core courses in tropical ecology, resource economics, socialanthropology and statistics. This provides a common platform from which moreinterdisciplinary perspectives are progressively developed over the coming semesters.

A course in management of natural resources forms the core of the second semester, withemphasis on more theoretical aspects of natural resource management. In the thirdsemester, students spend seven weeks in Uganda or Nepal in a developing countryuniversity environment. They take applied field courses in rural development, researchmethods and project planning, management and evaluation. After this, theydo thesis fieldwork for three months.

The final semester is spent at NLH, studying political ecology andparticipating in a thesis seminar where students defend their theses inpublic settings. The course helps students to contextualize theirresearch by analyzing the topic from the perspective of politicalecology. The seminar builds oral and written skills relative to the thesiswork. The main effort is the thesis write-up, which requires students toapply acquired knowledge to interdisciplinary themes and problems asthey analyze and interpret their data.


Interdisciplinarity and IntegrationInterdisciplinary generation of knowledge emerges in different ways. Possibilitieslie in the fact that the universe of information, theory, methods, approaches andknowledge potentially available is much larger outside than within acompartmentalized disciplinary world. A key challenge lies in finding ways tointegrate such knowledge in a consistent and meaningful way.

Table 1 describes the approaches used in the MNRSA program to facilitateinterdisciplinarity.

Table 1. Approaches Used in the MNRSA Program to Facilitate Interdisciplinarity

Approach Examples of Application

The livelihood approach Rural developmentPoverty and environment

Stakeholder analysis Protected areas and peopleRural developmentDevelopment project assessments

Systems approaches Carbon sequestrationRangeland and peopleFarming systems

Farming and production systemsapproaches

Crop diversificationRural development

Entitlement/endowment approaches Diversification/differentiationEnvironmental entitlements

The narrative approach Development strategiesEnvironmental policy strategies

Common pool theories Managing village commonsRural credit systems

Rights-based development Local people/protected areas

Social capital Rural development/local heterogeneity

Actor-structure networks Relationships, farmers/wider society

Some Definitions (based on OECD, 1972; Apostel et al., 1972; and Gibbons, 1994)

Multi-disciplinarity is the conscious application of different sciences to the samephenomena, but with no explicit integration or cooperation.

Inter-disciplinarity is the integration of knowledge through various types of bordercrossings between disciplines. It surpasses mere additive approaches. The integration inproduction, education and application is an important component in knowledgecreation.

Cross-disciplinarity is polarized, but unidirectional cooperative research effort.

Trans-disciplinarity contributes theory, research methods, and modes of action that arenot located on current disciplinary and interdisciplinary maps. Disciplinary integration is akey element of trans-disciplinarity, but there is also an element of including experience-based knowledge and “non-scientific” everyday knowledge.


Components to PromoteInterdiciplinarity in Education

1. Have a clear goal for interdisciplinarityfor students.

2. Develop reflective perspectives for staffon theories in and for interdisciplinarity.

3. Design conscious package of courses topromote interdisciplinarity.

4. Design a designated flow of courses tocreate a good learning process.

5. Develop good methods for teachingand communication.

(Adapted from Egneus et al., 2000)

Interdisciplinarity is a ProcessMany claim that interdisciplinary efforts naturally gravitate towards theestablishment of new disciplines. The number of disciplines, sciences andfaculties has increased over time. A dominant mechanism has been thedifferentiation and specialization of scientific knowledge, also throughinterdisciplinary endeavors. Klein (1996) describes this as a process fromdisciplinary to interdisciplinary to new disciplinary approaches.

The goal of interdisciplinarity is not to develop new disciplines. It may, in mostcases, seem wiser to maintain disciplinary boundaries, while also working togetherin fields of common interest. Most knowledge is generated within the realm ofdisciplinary boundaries, and rather than seeing the two as alternative ways ofgenerating knowledge, one may regard them as complimentary. We see this as adisciplinary approach to interdisciplinarity.

Applying Interdisciplinarity in Education Efforts

Using Interdisciplinarity in Education EffortsIntegration and translation efforts requireresearchers who are able to understandconcepts, methods and knowledge fromdifferent sciences.

The education process should ensure thatthe new generations of researchers,educators and practitioners are able tointegrate and convey interdisciplinaryknowledge. This demands a mix ofscientific and skills-based knowledge,both in terms of methods and theory andpersonal competence.

A Clear Goal for Interdisciplinarity for StudentsBased on their exposure to theories of interdisciplinarity, students learn toappreciate the merits of different sets of knowledge and perspectives developed inalternative epistemological networks. Nevertheless, building a program around acomplex research field, as MNRSA has done, constitutes a challenge becausedifferent sciences necessarily have to play a role and serious integrative efforts arerequired.

An ongoing debate in our program is whether interdisciplinarity should be seen as anindividual skill or as a communicative tool. Or phrasing it differently: should the aim of theprogram be to develop candidates who do competent interdisciplinary work asindividuals? Or should the aim be to develop mastery of one discipline, along with theparticular skills needed to work in teams with researchers from other disciplines?


Staff and InterdisciplinarityResearchers trained in disciplines may lack both willingness and ability toconsciously join interdisciplinarity ventures. It is important that staff have similarperspectives on interdisciplinary issues, and that their approaches in teaching andsupervision follow similar lines of thinking. Through seminars, workshops, staffdiscussions, presentations, joint research and publications and through workingtogether with students for classes and supervision, competence is built, though ittakes some time.

Conscious Composition of Courses, Blocks and ProgramsSingle disciplines may not be able to respond adequately to certain broad orcomplex issues. For such issues, particular benefits can be reaped throughinterdisciplinary approaches where knowledge is utilized from different disciplinesto develop new insights. Interdisciplinary approaches can thus be constructive intheir own right, and can also serve as a useful corrective to more disciplinaryapproaches.

MNRSA believes that no viable alternative exists to multi- and interdisciplinaryapproaches when dealing with natural resource management and sustainableagriculture. Real-life problems do not respect disciplinary boundaries. Given ourgoal of educating generalists in the MNRSA field, the broad interdisciplinaryapproach seems warranted. Students tackling complex issues in term papers andthesis work need abilities to combine perspectives from different sciences and gaininsights that would not be captured through a disciplinary approach.

Developing Interdisciplinarity Through a Learning ProcessProcess is important. Given our aims for the program, we stage courses and goalsassuming that students will mature over the study period in response to theirexperiences. We furthermore consciously select a scientifically- and culturally-heterogeneous group of students, thoughmost of them come from asocial or biophysicalscience background.

We want our students todevelop a sound set ofcritical values and normsfrom which to addressproblems and conflictsconcerning natural resourcemanagement. Our aim is forstudents to developdisciplinary knowledge inrelevant fields as afoundation for deeperunderstanding and analysis.


Challenges of Interdisciplinarity – Piece of Cake?Interdisciplinary approaches and ventures are more popular in political,bureaucratic and in private enterprise environments than in academia. Differentreasons are given for this. Some are good -- others less so. One could even theorizethat disciplinary researchers feel threatened by interdisciplinary research and mayreact by sowing doubts about it. Here we examine four common arguments.

1. The general quality of “interdisciplinary work” is not good enough.Any field of research attracts different researchers, scholars and practitioners, andwith a lack of coherence and substantial heterogeneity, results from research andactivities tend to vary substantially in quality. Keeping the breadth of knowledgemakes it difficult for researchers to maintain a sufficient depth of knowledge.However, given that much research in general is interdisciplinary, this critique mayhold good only for certain types of interdisciplinary work.

Disciplinary Approach to Interdisciplinarity: A Group Exercise in the MNRSAProgram for Visualizing the Challenges of Interdisciplinarity

Recruitment of students from different disciplines was used as an asset in teaching.Newly-arrived students were split into different groups according to their scientificbackground and asked three questions.

1. Describe theproblem ofovergrazing inAfrica.

1. Reduced vegetationcover

2. Low infiltration capacity3. Reduction in

biodiversity4. Reduction in

regeneration5. Increased soil erosion

1. Loss of livelihood, increasedfood insecurity

2. Lower incomes affectproductivity

3. Increased disease due tolack of food

4. Migration5. Social conflicts

2. Rank the threemain factorscausing theproblem.

1. Cultural values of livestock -prestige

2. Increasing humanpopulation

3. Market forces, price of meat

1. Change in grazingpractice

2. Increase in livestocknumbers

3. Lack of palatablespecies in the area

1. Education awareness andextension services

2. Diversified income-generating activities

3. Government policy ondestocking and family plan

3. Develop asolution amongthree mainelements andrank these

1. Destocking2. Stall feeding3. Zoning for rotational

grazing

The differences were more striking than anticipated. The responses show a systematicdifference in focus and in the way that different disciplinary groups describe, explainand prescribe a particular environmental plan. The biophysical scientists focus onnature and the “welfare of nature”. The social scientists focus on human adaptation,social systems and the “welfare of humans”. MNRSA aims to stimulate integration ofthese perspectives by the end of the study program.

The exercise is useful in at least two ways: it clearly shows the reality of mental mapscreated around disciplinary orientations, and it stimulates a useful process of self-reflection among the students.

Question Responses

Biophysical Science Group Social Science Group


2. There is no textbook or uniform perception of quality ininterdisciplinary research. Integration and translation activities do not have awell-formulated epistemological and methodological basis. How do you assess thequality? At present, such assessment is more experience-based and it is developedthrough practical work. This lack of consensus on definitions, methods andapproaches is a major constraint to increased academic and practical acceptance ofinterdisciplinary research. There is no universally-accepted or legitimate yardstickby which the quality of interdisciplinary efforts can be assessed.

Lattuca, 2002 talks about the “serendipitous meetings” that often generateinterdisciplinary undertakings, and her point underscores the lack of“disciplined approaches” and the lack of “time tested and licensed wayof seeing things”.

3. There are substantial communication problems especially betweennatural and social sciences. In many ways, crossing boundaries is easier if theepistemologies are similar as between natural sciences, but more difficult if theytend to differ substantially as between for example economics and ecology(Vedeld, 1994). Crossing boundaries is difficult and it tends to antagonize personsand systems guarding mainstream scientific approaches against “intrusion andanomalies”.

4. Constraints in education efforts. There aremany challenges facing teachers and studentsinvolved in interdisciplinarity. It is crucial thateducators have clear concepts about whatinterdisciplinarity is and how they plan topromote interdisciplinary thinking and practicethrough their teaching activities. This is not easy.Furthermore, teachers need to master curriculumdevelopment and to possess a broad grasp ofdifferent relevant subjects.

At the same time, students must have enoughskills in different subjects and be able to handlethe complex issues of translation and integration.We can not expect a 100% success rate on theseissues, but improving teacher and studentperformance is important.

Substantial institutional and organizational factors constraininterdisciplinarity. Mainstream disciplinary department, faculty and university-ledsystems rule the ground concerning the development and approval of educationprograms, research grants, jobs, journals and promotions.

However new, innovative and largely non-academic institutions seem increasinglyable, willing and even obliged by donors and other factors, to move in a moreapplied and often more interdisciplinary direction in their research anddevelopment activities. Values coming from “outside” can influence researchenvironments through epistemic encounters, creating new and interestingapproaches in knowledge generation processes (Gibbons et al., 1994).


ConclusionsEnvironmental education is important. There is a strong need to developenvironmental managers and planners with sound theoretical footing and withgood practical skills for natural resource and sustainable agriculture management.

This field of environment and development presupposes insights from a varietyof disciplines. Acknowledging the fact that much knowledge generation is heavilycompartmentalized and developed under different epistemic networks, one alsoneeds abilities to “select and integrate knowledge from differentdisciplines within a coherent framework”.

It is useful to see interdisciplinary efforts of translation and integration of varioustypes of knowledge and insights as part of any discipline’s everyday research anddevelopment activities. Almost all research efforts involve insights from more thanone discipline. It is thus an inherent part of scientific activities in all camps. Seeinginterdisciplinarity as one of severalprocesses for knowledgecreation is a fruitfulperspective, rather thanthinking about it as a processfor the development of a new(“and better”) discipline.Much of the problemsencountered in scientificinquiry are in fact caused byrigid discipline mainstreamingprocesses.

The MNRSA program has alsodeveloped an understanding of thedifference between theories in interdisciplinarity from theories forinterdisciplinarity; for how to teach and apply theories. Many research andeducation efforts aiming to be interdisciplinary lack theoretical or explicitperceptions on what interdisciplinarity is about.

Typical Problems Encountered in Interdisciplinary Education Efforts

1. Differences in the epistemological characteristics of disciplinary knowledge makesintegration of different subjects in education a problematic undertaking.

2. Differences in disciplinary traditions in teaching and learning makes interdisciplinarity achallenge.

3. Different learning views held by students makes crossing of boundaries problematic forthe students themselves.

4. Different conceptions academic staff have of teaching and learning itself makescollaboration across faculty boundaries difficult.

5. Problems in translating produced disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge into acommunicative teaching system add a complex dimension to curriculumdevelopment.

6. Integration and translation of knowledge are too often left to the students themselves.

(Adapted from Egneus et al., 2000)


We do not claim to have a master plan or even a very good approach for achievinginterdisciplinarity in education, but we stress the importance of having theoretical andskills-based goals for the program, and goals for our interdisciplinarity efforts. In ourcontext, we believe that our graduating students should be able to “select andintegrate knowledge from different disciplines within a coherent framework”. This requiresstaff devoted to continuously developing new ways of presenting their fields of studywith a view to promoting the development of students’ interdisciplinary abilities andskills.

We also emphasize orienting the composition and staging of courses so that theyfacilitate a maturing process for students spanning knowledge, skills and attitudes.

RecommendationsA major challenge is to improve the consciousness about interdisciplinarity amongstaff and students and increase the level of integration between courses andactivities. The students should also receive more help in developing knowledgeand skills in this context.

On Theoretical PerspectivesOne element to be scrutinized is the conscious inclusion and or increasedemphasis on issues that first of all are topical and important for the program, butat the same time promote interdisciplinarity. Such issues may relate to resource useconflicts and conflict resolution, complex urban environmental challenges, issuesover global environmental negotiations, and the complex policy games and theirlink to natural resource and environmental challenges of different stakeholders.

On Relationships Between Theoretical- and Experience-BasedKnowledgeThere is a balance between theoretical and practical knowledge. As generalists,students need exposure to the real world, even if there is “nothing more practicalthan a good theory”.

On Practical Teaching Methods – Problem-BasedLearningThe MNRSA plans to increase and professionalize the use ofproblem-based learning, where studentshave to take responsibility for their ownlearning. Students are given a problem tobe addressed and have to find out forthemselves what type of insight andknowledge they need to approach theproblem. This approach is ideal forpromoting interdisciplinarity andintegration awareness and skills. Thepresent thesis work has importantelements of this thinking, but can still beexpanded from present day practices.


Contributed by:Paul VedeldEmail: [email protected]

On Staff Development InitiativesStaff development is a continuous process. Apart from training, courses, seminarsand workshops in the field, it is important for staff to teach together, do researchand assignments together and also socialize in more relaxed contexts. These are allimportant processes of creating good relations and a better working environment.Charging batteries is also important, such as short- and medium-term sabbaticals,where staff should seek other environments worldwide.

ReferencesApostel, L., G. Berger, A. Briggs and G. Machaud (eds). 1972. Interdisciplinarity, Problems of

Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris. Center for Research and Innovation. OECDReport. 321p.

Egneus, H., K. Bruckmeier and M. Polk. 2000. The Nature of Interdisciplinary. Report to theInterfaculty Committee for Thematic Studies. Gotenborg Unviersity.

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Scwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow. 1994. The NewProduction of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.Sage Publication, London. 179p.

Klein, J. T. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledges, Disciplinaries and Interdisciplinarities.Charlottesville and London University Press of Virginia. 281p.

Lattuca, L. R. 2002. Learning Interdisciplinarity: Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Academic Work.The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 73, No. 6: 711-739. Ohio State University.

OECD. 1972. Teaching and Interdisciplinarity. OECD Report.

Vedeld, P. 1994. Interdisciplinarity and the Environment. Neoclassical Economic and EcologicalPerspectives on the Use of Natural Resources. Ecological Economics. 10 (1994) 1-13. Elsevier.

Vedeld, P. 2004. Crafting Interdisciplinarity in Teaching Management of Natural Resources andSustainable Agriculture: Experiences from the M.Sc. Program in Management of NaturalResources and Sustainable Agriculture, NLH. Noragric Working Paper No. 33. Noragric:Agricultural University of Norway.


Interdisciplinary Work:Patterns and Practicalities 31

I nterdisciplinary research projects differ in nature, intensity, scale, complexity,level and aspiration for outcomes. This paper attempts to portray patterns ofinterdisciplinary work and practicalities associated with this mode of conductingagricultural research.

Interdisciplinary work is both aproduct and a stimulus or even asimultaneous companion ofconcepts like integration, holism,coherence, comprehensive,synergism, multisectoral, sustainable,environment, farming system,ecosystem, land-use patterns,participatory, quality of life, poverty,women-in-development, user’sperspective, and others. Thesubstance behind each of these ismore than one aspect, and therefore more than one discipline is often called uponto carry out research programs/projects which emerge from any of these concepts.

Typology of Interdisciplinary Research ProjectsWithout claiming an exhaustive survey of relevant materials, a typology ofinterdisciplinary agricultural research projects is attempted here in order to providea variety of scenarios involving social scientists. The categories in this typology arenot mutually exclusive. They are meant to illustrate the predominant operationalmode manifested in each type.

Interdisciplinary Work: Patterns andPracticalities

Patterns of Interdisciplinary Work

“Interdisciplinary,” based on Webster’s definition,means involving or joining two or more disciplines orbranches of learning. The prefix “inter,” however,conveys a nuance not evident in the abovedefinition. “Inter” means between or among, with/or on each other (or one another) together, mutual,reciprocal. “Multidisciplinary,” on the other hand,means combining the disciplines of many differentbranches of learning or of research. This nuance isprovided by the prefix “inter” and “multi” simplymeans many. Such subtleties when applied to theconduct of research may not be very subtle,operationally speaking.

3535353535


Conceptual InterdisciplinarityThe approach involves two or more disciplines examining the dimensions of acomplex problem through dialogues at a much more abstract level.

An example would be an experience from the United Nations University. Theuniversity had a five-year effort on an interdisciplinary dialogue on world hunger,bringing together social scientists (Human and Social Development Program) andnutritional scientists (World Hunger Program). In general terms, the socialscientists argued that hunger and malnutrition are merely the most obvioussymptoms of a much more complex set of societal issues which must be resolvedbefore world hunger can be eliminated. On the other hand, the nutritionalscientists expressed a concern for what could or should be done in the meantime,while such fundamental societal changes were coming about, for the millions ofpeople who are now hungry.

The general thrust of the social scientists is to emphasize the holistic approach-aprocess by which a large number of variables are considered simultaneously.Whereas the World Hunger Program is oriented toward the identification andamelioration of specific needs (e.g., nutritional deficiencies, postharvest foodlosses, etc.), the Human and Social Development Program proposes that few, ifany, effective long-term developmental consequences can be obtained for viewingand acting upon such needs apart from the broader context of social, cultural,economic, and political issues with which they are inextricably bound.

Multi-Component InterdisciplinarityThis type refers to research programscharacterized by multiple components andseveral disciplines within a program. Thesecomponents and disciplines have little or nointeraction between and among them exceptthe recognition that they are logically related toeach other.

To illustrate, a research program can coverseveral aspects of the sweetpotato fromproduction, distribution, utilization andimpact involving relevant disciplines includingsocioeconomics. Each component, however,has a separate identity with minimal input from each other and no commongoal, which every component must contribute to.

Systems-Oriented InterdisciplinarityThis approach attempts to arrive at an analytical description and diagnosis of thesystem showing the interconnectedness between different parts of the system. Ithelps locate diagnosed problems in their relevant physical, biological and socialcontext. Participation in and/or exposure to the analysis and its outputs enableresearchers in narrowly defined specializations to acquire a farming system oragroecosystem perspective, including sensitivity to gender issues.

In the past, the so-calledmultidiscplinary researchprograms meant severalindependent and separateprojects in one program.The only times theycome together arein the projectproposal and inthe pages of theproject report.This state ofaffairs ischanging, albeitslowly.


Gordon Conway (1985), a prominent advocate of agroecosystem analysis, argues:“Farmers of necessity adopt a multidisciplinary, holistic approach to their workand it would seem logical that this should also apply to the design andimplementation of agricultural research and development programs.” He reasonsfurther that many, if not all of the problems, are essentially systemic in nature.According to Conway, they are linked to each other and to the performance of thesystem as a whole. Another systems-oriented type of interdisciplinarity is farmingsystems research (FSR).

Consultative InterdisciplinaritySome research projects are predominantly social science (economic anthropology,sociology, etc.) but consult with agricultural experts for specific aspects of theresearch problem.

For example, Gascon’s (1989) study, “Women’s Technical Knowledge and TheirParticipation in Rice Farming,” used rice scientists in developing the technicalknowledge test, which consists of a series of questions on basic managementpractices judged to be critical in achieving maximum input efficiency. It includedthe following categories of technological practices in rice farming: varieties andseed management; fertilizer use; insect and weed control; and other pre- andpostharvest management practices.

Hypothesis-Testing InterdisciplinarityWhen well-defined research problems of an interdisciplinary character emergefrom a system-like perspective, when the variables are clearly identified, when theexpected relationships between them are articulated, and when the indicators areoperationalized, a hypothesis-testing stage has been reached with more than onediscipline participating. Although each scientist is assigned a very specific task inhis area of expertise, all the disciplines’ contributors are essential to the substanceof the hypothesis to be tested.

An example of this type is the Abansi et al. (1990) study using the hedonic pricingmodel to evaluate consumer preference for rice quality. Consumers were

Basic Elements for Achieving the Farming Systems Approach

q analysis of women’s productive activities within the farmingsystems including their roles in the households and agriculturalproduction

q identification of existing, emerging, and future technologyoptions conducive to the expansion of women’sproductive capacity

q greater understanding of the factors constraining orsupportive of women’s more productiveparticipation in farming systems such as access toinformation, organization, productive resources, accessto and control over resources

q application of this understanding throughout the farmingsystems research process

q pilot testing of promising technologies


Unlike other types ofinterdisciplinary, interactive,focused problem-solving isnot only interactivebetween agricultural andsocial scientists but alsocontinuos and focused onsolving a particularagricultural problem. It seeksto understand, identify,define, and solve theproblem.

categorized by rural-urban and by income class. Physical andchemical characteristics considered important determinants of riceprice were whiteness, translucency, grain length, foreign mattercontent, head rice recovery, apparent amylase content, and alkalispreading value.

While this study was basically an economics research project, thephysical and chemical characteristics of the rice samples wereanalyzed at the cereal chemistry laboratory of the InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI). Without this analysis of thepreferred rice qualities, the results would have been sociallyinteresting but would not be of much specific use to otheragricultural scientists. Because of the physical and chemicalresults, which are associated with socioeconomic characteristicsof consumers, the project investigators could draw implicationsfor rice research on breeding, cultivation and postharvest systems to producequalities, which better satisfy consumer needs.

Interactive, Focused Problem-Solving InterdisciplinarityAgricultural research projects, which ultimately aim to develop relevant andeffective technology for users, have begun to consider the involvement of socialscientists in the technology generation process. Their role is not only to helpassess potential acceptability of the technology or to evaluate its success or failureafter it has been introduced but as a working partner in the technologydevelopment process as well.

An excellent example of this is the work of an interdisciplinary team(anthropologists and postharvest technologists) in developing postharvesttechnology at the International Potato Center (CIP). The project came about afterpotato stores in Peru, which were technically sound and extremely well designedaccording to storage specialists, were hardly ever used.

The research team approached the problem of storagefrom the farmers’ point of view. Farmers claimed thatthe difficulty was not with their storage technology perse but with new “varieties” that produced long sproutswhen stored under traditional methods. As a result ofthis anthropology-technical science dialogue, the teamconcentrated on a new method of storing improvedseed potatoes in the farm by applying a technique fromCIP. Under experiment station conditions, naturaldiffused light technique aids in the control of sproutgrowth and lessens pest and disease damage. After considerable modificationbased on farmers’ advice, the team developed a rustic seed store model. Uponseeing that diffused light storage reduced sprout elongation, farmers expressedinterest but were then conceived about the cost of see trays. In response, the teambuilt simple collapsible shelves from local timber and used them in the secondseries of on-farm trials. The results were again positive but this time farmers wereable to relate more closely to the rustic design of the stores.


The prototype rustic seed store was promoted in 25 countries by nationalprograms but virtually every farmer developed his or her own unique design basedon the diffused light principle. Anthropological follow-up in adoption areasdemonstrated clearly that technology, as a unique physical package, was not beingaccepted. The diffused light principle was being translated into an amazing arrayof farmer experimental and adopted versions of potato stores with their owncultural flavor.

In this particular case, the anthropologist and the postharvest technologies appliedtheir respective technical and sociocultural knowledge, skills, and methods in aninteractive manner to find a solution to some of the potato seed storage problems.In the process, they learned a great deal from each other and about the technologyitself.

Action-Research in Action InterdisciplinarityThe process of working out implementation strategies in agricultural developmentprograms which have both technical and social components require research notonly before and after the action is taking place. As a matter of fact, research guidesthe action. The action-research in action type of interdisciplinarity involves thetechnical experts, farmers, social scientists and policymakers.

An example of this is provided by the Philippine National IrrigationAdministration’s (NIA) experiment on participatory communal irrigation asreported by de los Reyes and Jopillo (1986):

“The usual irrigation development strategy focuses on the construction ofthe physical irrigation system and becomes concerned with thedevelopment of the social organization of the system only uponcompletion of construction. NIA’s approach in contrast, addresses thedevelopment of the irrigation organization before the start ofconstruction. For this purpose, NIA fields full-time organizers to a projectarea months before the agency expects to begin construction of theirrigation system. These organizers, called irrigation community organizers(ICOs), work with farmers to develop and strengthen their association.They prepare farmers for working with engineers in planning the layoutand design the construction plans of the irrigation system. Thus, a keycharacteristic of NIA’s approach is the participation of farmers in thedevelopment of their irrigation system from the design to the actualconstruction. Once the construction assistance is completed, NIA turnsover the improved irrigation system to the irrigators’ association. Thisturnover bestows formal recognition on the association as the systemowner which from then on becomes responsible for system operation andmaintenance.”

The research part of this approach includes a community and social profiling, acontinuing process documentation of what is going on which feeds into theactions taken, and evaluation studies to assess the effects of the intervention onthe irrigators’ associations. The entire approach involves farmers, irrigationengineers, policymakers, community organizers, and social scientists.


“Hybridized” InterdisciplinarityThrough training, personal inclination and interests, exposure to, and experience inmore than one type of subject matter and more than one discipline, someprofessionals acquire “hybridized” interdisciplinarity. This means that they are ableto function within a system or at least a broader perspective than social sciencealone or agriculture alone.

Examples of this hybridization are agricultural anthropologists, ecologicalanthropologists, agricultural economists, and agricultural sociologists. Onerequirement of social scientists who will be engaged in agriculturally-relatedresearch is to understand enough about agriculture so that there will be acommon basis for interaction.

Raintree’s (1989) study, “Socioeconomic Attributes of Trees,”illustrates this kind of hybridization. His paperposits a set of relationships between thebiophysical attributes of trees, on the one hand,and the socioeconomic attributes of trees on theother. Socio-economic attributes of particular treesrefer to those biophysical attributes, which makethem useful or useless, adaptable or non-adaptable,beneficial or harmful, relevant or irrelevant to differentusers in different socio-economic settings.

It is probably fair to say that Raintree would not have thought about this conceptif he did not have the professional background as an ecological anthropologistand the exposure to and understanding about different functions of trees indifferent contexts and for different groups of people.

As a second example, after his experiences working with experiment station,scientists at CIP, and farmers at the field level, Rhoades (1982) arrived at basicquestions about farm trials:

q Is the problem to be solved important to farmers?q Do farmers understand the trials?q Do farmers have time, inputs, and labor required by the improved

technology?q Does the proposed technology make sense within the present farming

system?q Is the proposed change compatible with local preferences, beliefs, or

community sanctions?q Do farmers believe the technology will hold up over the long term?

Practicalities in Interdisciplinary WorkDespite its current “glamour,” interdisciplinary work has its cost. It is not cheap interms of research manpower, time for meetings, dialogues, arguments and skillsrequired in pulling it off. This cost must be offset by the gains. In assessing thepotential benefits and costs, the following issues might be worth looking at.


Elements Contributing to the Reliabilityof an Interdisciplinary Approach

q cross-disciplinary learningq common definition of the problemq mutual professional respectq catalytic rather than “explosive”

chemistry of personalities or at least anability to return to relative harmonyafter each major or minor “explosion”(some call this “creative tension”)

q identifiable outputs (beyond whateach discipline would haveproduced by itself) from the exercise

LeadershipWho writes the proposal and provides theguiding hand? Who writes the report and howare others credited, especially when theprocess is so interactive that the output isabove and beyond the sum total of theidentifiable individual contributions fromeach discipline? As Rhoades points out:“Each discipline interprets the problem in itsown way and perhaps overstates or misstatesthe position of the other discipline.Professional ethnocentrism in agriculturaldevelopment is still more powerful than we like to admit.”

The Research Team and its DynamicsWhat is the composition and size of the research team? Where would themembers be recruited?

Interdisciplinary SponsorAn interdisciplinary project will find support only if the sponsors are alsointerdisciplinary in inclination. Otherwise, a research project has to be brokendown into different components to obtain funding from different divisions orsections of the same funding agency.

Possible Outcomes from Interdisciplinary WorkWhat has been achieved so far from interdisciplinary work in agricultural research?

q Consciousness-raising with respect to the role of other factors in order toprovide specialized disciplines a broader perspective, if not a holistic one.

q Descriptive analytical diagnosis of existing systems.q Identification and specification of problems within the agricultural system

which lend themselves to more specialized disciplinary research.q Hypothesis-testing in an interdisciplinary fashion.q Development of technologies which are more appropriate to user’s needs.q Increased skill in applying the system-diagnostic procedures to variable

scales such as micro (household management unit); meso (localcommunity); and macro (region, country, ecozones).

q Judicious “borrowing” of research methods (qualitative, quantitative, etc.).

It has been said that while an economist can teach the anthropologist how tocount, the latter can show the former what to count. At the start of any researchproject (whether biological science or social science) an introduction toanthropological field research methods is useful because they offer a systematicway of getting acquainted with field realities. But perhaps there is a great deal ofwisdom in the admonition: “the best type of interdisciplinary thinking is one thattakes place within the same skull.”


Contributed by:Gelia T. CastilloEmail: [email protected]

ReferencesAbansi, C.L., F. A. Lantican, B. Duff and I. G. Catedral. 1990. Hedonic Model Estimation:

Application to Consumer Demand for Rice Grain Quality. Paper prepared for the 12th AnnualScientific Meeting of the National Academy of Science and Technology, Manila, July 11, 1990.

Bene, J.G., H. W. Beall and A. Cote. 1989. Trees, Food and People: Land Management in theTropics, IDRC, Ottawa.

Conway, G. R. 1985. Agroecosystem Analysis, Agricultural Administration, No. 20, pp 31-35.

Crissman, C. 1989. Seed Potato Systems in the Philippines, PCARRD and CIP.

de los Reyes, R. P. and S. Jopillo. 1986. An Evaluation of the Philippine Participatory CommunalIrrigation Program, Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University, Manila.

Gascon, F. B. 1989. Women’s Technical Knowledge and Their Participation in Rice FarmingUnpublished M.S. Thesis, University of the Philippines at Los Baños.

Kumar, S. K. and D. Hotchkiss. 1988. Consequences of Deforestation for Women’s TimeAllocation, Agricultural Production and Nutrition in Hill Areas of Nepal, IFPRI Abstract,Research Report 69.

Mallonga, D. 1988. Integration of New Rice Technology in a Mindanao Village. Unpublished M.S.Thesis, University of the Philippines at Los Baños.

Merill-Sands, D and D. Kaimowitz. 1977. The Technology Triangle: Linking Farmers, TechnologyTransfer Agents, and Agricultural Researchers, ISNAR.

Pingali, P. L., C. Marquez and R. Valmonte. 1990. Pesticide Use, Safety Practices and Health Costs:The Case of Laguna, Philippines. Paper prepared for the Workshop on the Environmental andHealth Impacts of Pesticide Use in Rice Culture, 28-30 March 1990, IRRI, Los Baños.

Raintree, J. B. 1989. The Socioeconomic Attributes of Trees. Paper prepared as a CollaborativeProject Between FAO and ICRAF with partial support from an author’s contract from SIDA/FAO FORESTS, TREES, and PEOPLE Program.

Raintree, J. B. 1987. The State of the Art of Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design, AgroforestrySystems. Vol. 5, No. 3. p. 225.

Rhoades, R. E. 1984. Breaking New Ground. Agricultural Anthropology. International PotatoCenter. pp. 17-38.

Rhoades, R. E. 1982. Understanding Small Farmers: Socio-cultural Perspectives on ExperimentalFarm Trials, International Potato Center, Training Document 1982-3.

Wallerstein, M. B. 1980. Interdisciplinary Dialogue on World Hunger, UNU Newsletter Supplement,United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan. Vol. 4, No. 3.


39Evaluating Capacity for Participatory Research

Evaluating Capacity forParticipatory Research

I n the early 1980s, the international agricultural research community recognizedthe need to develop and apply new research and development approaches,participatory research in particular, to the needs of marginalized farming groups.Because rootcrops are often associated with resource-poor farming households inthe Philippines, the Northern Philippines Rootcrops Research and TrainingCenter (NPRCRTC or the Rootcrops Center) identified participatory research as arelevant and essential capacity for the successful implementation of its missionand objectives. It developed its capacity to undertake participatory researchthrough training of staff, the acquisition and use of publications and small grant-funded projects, which enabled the staff to learn by doing.

While it has a long history of partnership withthe Rootcrops Center, the major intervention ofthe International Potato Center (CIP) fordeveloping participatory research capacities wasformalized via the Users’ Perspectives WithAgricultural Research and Development(UPWARD), a network that promotes the useof participatory research. The RootcropsCenter-UPWARD partnership, which wasformally launched in 1990, was founded on ashared interest in rootcrops as a priority focus for research, and participatoryresearch as a potential means to achieve the target outputs and developmentoutcomes of rootcrop research.

This paper discusses the experience and learnings of the Rootcrops Center andUPWARD in evaluating capacity development based on their 12-year partnership.

For additional information aboutthe evaluation study, see:Campilan, D., J. Perez, J. Sim and R.Boncodin. 2003. EvaluatingOrganizational Capacity inParticipatory Research: The Case ofa Rootcrops Center in thePhilippines. In: From Cultivators toConsumers, Participatory ResearchWith Various User Groups. Los Baños,Laguna, Philippines. pp 215-225.

3636363636


Evaluating Capacity DevelopmentThe Rootcrops Center and UPWARD participated in a project on EvaluatingCapacity Development (ECD), led by the International Service for NationalAgricultural Research (ISNAR), primarily because of their common interest toevaluate and learn from their 12-year partnership. With declining levels of fundingand a need to redefine its niche within the country’s broader rootcrops researchsystem by maintaining its relevance and contribution to agricultural developmentin the Philippines, the Center also intended to use this evaluation to contribute toits internal review and planning processes.

For its part, UPWARD saw the need to systematically review how its decade-longcapacity development efforts have contributed to organizational development ofits partner organizations (Figure 1).

Participatory Research: The NPRCRTC-UPWARD Partnership

The NPRCRTC is mandated to spearhead research, training and extension on rootcropsin the highlands of northern Philippines. It was established as an autonomous publicsector organization operationally attached to the Benguet State University (BSU). In thelate 1980s, the Center began collaborative activities with various national andinternational organizations including the UPWARD network of CIP.

The NPRCRTC-UPWARD partnership was formed primarily by their shared interest inrootcrops as a research priority focus, and on participatory research as a potentialmeans to achieve target technological outputs and development outcomes. The 12-year partnership initially revolved around a research project on sweetpotato-basedurban home gardens in Baguio City that was of interest and important concern to boththe Center and UPWARD.

Since 1991, the Rootcrops Center-UPWARD collaboration has evolved toward:

1) a shifting focus from home gardens to snackfood enterprise development2) a series of research activities extending from problem diagnosis to facilitation of local

innovation processes3) building new alliances with other local organizations4) forming various interdisciplinary teams in response to changing research tasks

Figure 1. Theory of Action Guiding the Evaluation

NPRCRTC

Motivation

Participatory Research andother Organizational

Capacities

Performance

EnvironmentUPWARD


The joint evaluation aimed to:

1. analyze the processes and outcome of developing the Rootcrop Center’sparticipatory research capacity

2. determine how its participatory research capacity has contributed to theeffective performance of the Center as a research organization

3. examine how UPWARD has contributed to the development of theCenter’s participatory research capacity

4. formulate a recommendation for improving capacity development effortsat the Center

Organizational Capacity Development and its Evaluation

In simple terms, an organization’s capacity is its potential to perform – its ability tosuccessfully apply its skills and resources to accomplish its goals and satisfy itsstakeholders’ expectations. The aim of capacity development is to improve potentialperformance of the organization as reflected in its resources and its management.

Organizational capacity development is an ongoing process by which an organizationincreases its ability to formulate and achieve relevant objectives. It involvesstrengthening both its operational and adaptive capacities. Organizational capacitydevelopment is undertaken by an organization through its own volition. It is carried outthrough the application of the organization’s own resources, which may besupplemented with external resources and assistance. External support for organizationalcapacity development can take different forms, including provision of financialresources, technical expertise, training, information, political negotiation, and facilitationof capacity development processes.

Monitoring and evaluating organizational capacity development is of criticalimportance to ensuring that capacity development initiatives actually lead toimproved performance. Because it aims to improve performance, any capacitydevelopment effort may be considered to be an inherently good investment, no matterhow it is approached. But poorly-conceived or implemented capacity developmentinitiatives can fail to improve, and can even worsen, performance by diverting theoverall attention and resources of the organization from high-priority to low-prioritycapacities.

Evaluation is an assessment at a point in time, often after the fact, that determines theworth, value or quality of an activity, project, program or policy. Monitoring andevaluation depend upon good planning to elaborate capacity development goalsand the means to achieve them.

Self-assessment is a valuable approach to evaluatingorganizational capacity development. Self-assessment involves an organization’s managers,staff, and stakeholders in the evaluationprocess, identifying strengths andweaknesses, and then applying findings tosetting new directions. The advantage ofthe self-assessment approach is thatpeople responsible for the organization’smanagement and operations, andstakeholders with a strong knowledgeand interest in the organization, gain anin-depth understanding of what workswell and why, and where improvements are needed. With this knowledge, they areextremely well prepared to address the necessary changes in practical ways.

Adapted from Horton et al., 2003


The evaluation primarily used a self-assessment methodology (Table 1) withCenter staff and stakeholders to design the evaluation, collect data, and analyzefindings. The evaluation involved several phases which included:

q secondary data collectionq a planning workshop to discuss concepts, practices and issues in capacity

development and the ECD projectq key informant interviewsq a summative workshop to present and analyze the data collected in the

previous phases through which conclusions were drawn up and limitationsof the evaluation were identified

q a synthesis and drafting of the evaluation reportq sharing and finalizing the report through workshops involving evaluation

stakeholders

On the whole, the evaluation chose to cover only human capabilities and toexclude organizational resources. The evaluation team faced major constraints indata collection because of the lack ofmonitoring records and the difficultyof contacting key informants forthe period being covered by thestudy. In addition, theevaluation was conductedsimultaneously with anexternal financialaudit of theRootcrops Center.This unwittinglyaffected stakeholders’perceptions on thepurpose and use of theevaluation.

Table 1. Self-Assessment Methods Used in the Evaluation Workshop

Method Data Collection Task

Brainstorming through cards corting Definition of concepts

Retrospective analysis through personalnarratives

Historical review

Matrix ranking to assign relative values toa set of criteria/items

Assessing degrees of organizationalcapacity and performance

Small group discussion and plenarypresentation

Analyzing organizational structure andexternal linkages

Diagramming, drawing, mapping

Case analysis for individual/groupreflection of key issues

Examining actions, outcomes and factorsaffecting capacity development

Drawing conclusions andrecommendations


The Evaluation FindingsThe evaluation identified environmental and motivational factors influencingcapacity development and performance, examined the processes of developingparticipatory research capacity at the Center, and assessed the contribution ofpartner organizations to capacity development for participatory research.

Factors Influencing Capacity DevelopmentEnvironmental factors — such as the policy and funding environment,organizational autonomy, and natural disasters — and motivational factors —such as organizational change and reorganization, staff homogeneity, externalrecognition — influenced both positively and negatively the Center’s capacitydevelopment and performance in participatory research.

Defining Participatory Research Capacity

A major prerequisite in the evaluation was defining the capacity and the capacitydevelopment process. As the evaluation focused on participatory research capacity, itwas necessary to develop an operational definition of participatory research and tolocate this within the overall organizational capacity of NPRCRTC.

The project team decided to define participatory research together with NPRCRTC stafffor two basic reasons: as primary source of data for the evaluation, the definition must besomething that they fully understood; and since it is an evaluation of their capacities, thedefinition needs to reflect their own worldview of participatory research.

During the planning workshop, NPRCRTC staff were first asked to identify terms that theyassociate with participatory research. Individual responses were written on cards whichwere then jointly sorted and grouped by workshop participants to identify the elementsthat constitute their definition of participatory research. By consensus, Center staffagreed on a definition based on four basic elements: interdisciplinarity, teamwork, multi-agency collaboration, and user participation.

Also during the planning workshop, NPRCRTC staff sought to relate participatory researchto other capacities of the Center. This enabled the team to analyze participatoryresearch capacity within the framework of the Rootcrops Center’s overall organizationalcapacity. Through a diagramming exercise, workshop participants identified three typesof capacities contributing to NPRCRTC’s performance as a research organization:

1) technical, referring to those capacities in the technical areas of expertise present inthe organization

2) management, referring to those capacities in leadership and strategic visioning of theorganization

3) facilitative, referring to those capacities inenabling the organization to makeproductive use of its technical capacities.

Participatory research was categorized as asubset of facilitative capacities andrepresents a particular approach by whichNPRCRTC staff and management combinetheir technical and management capacitiesin the performance of its research function.


NPRCRTC’s Efforts in Capacity DevelopmentThe study concluded that training, information support, mentoring and small-grant projects all made a contribution to the Center’s overall strategy for capacitydevelopment. No particular mechanism, however, was identified as effective on itsown. Though the partnership between NPRCRTC and UPWARD was specific toparticipatory research, the study concluded that it was crucial for the partnerorganizations to understand how one specific capacity builds synergy with othertechnical, facilitative and strategic management capacities of the organization.

UPWARD’s Contribution to Capacity DevelopmentUPWARD was identified as the main external institution supporting the Center’sefforts for developing participatory research capacity. Mentoring was UPWARD’sprimary means for capacity development support. This occurred through informalvisits and consultation meetings with senior UPWARD network members andstaff from the UPWARD coordinating office. Costs for training and mentoringactivities accounted for nearly half of the total investment made by UPWARD insupporting the Center’s capacity development efforts. In contrast, project grantsonly accounted for one-third of total investments. This suggests that theNPRCRTC-UPWARD collaboration was grounded on a far more diverseportfolio of joint efforts for capacity development and research implementation.

Key NPRCRTC Strategies in Capacity Development for Participatory Research

Trainings: Capacity development efforts through trainings included degree and non-degree trainings, seminar-workshops, conferences and meetings attended by staff. Duringthe earlier years of the Center, trainings attended by staff primarily dealt with technicalsubject matter (i.e., broad topics on agriculture and specific topics on rootcrops) andgeneral research methods. However, during the 1990s, attendance in trainings onparticipatory research was most frequent and involved several staff. For example in1991, 13 staff underwent training on participatory problem diagnosis and needsassessment. In addition, all of the staff participated in a 1998 workshop on participatoryresearch methods.

Publications: The inventory of titles of publications acquired by the staff from 1990-2000indicated that the majority dealt with technical subject matter, both on generalagriculture (34%) and specifically on rootcrops (36%). Publications on rootcrops mainlyfocused on crop improvement, seed production, pest and disease control, andpostharvest and utilization. About one-fourth of publications focused on participatoryresearch. These included: case studies on the use of participatory approaches inagricultural research, manuals on participatory research methods, newsletters containingarticles on completed and on-going participatory research projects,and volumes of papers on issues and challenges in participatoryresearch.

Field Research: While project grants were mainly intended forimplementation of research activities, the staff also consideredthese as mechanisms for enabling staff to learn by doing, i.e.,developing capacity through hands-on experience. It wasduring the 1990s that the Center obtained significant externalfinancial support for research projects involving the use ofparticipatory methods. Besides the core funding from BSU, theCenter expanded its collaboration with CIP by initiating a projecton strengthening informal seed systems for potato, together withthe collaborative project with UPWARD on sweetpotato gardens.


Outcomes of Capacity Development EffortsA wider evaluation of changes in participatory research capacity through self-assessment by NPRCRTC staff and other UPWARD network members in thePhilippines showed that a variety of types of capacities were developed spanningthe entire process of research planning and implementation, and extending beyondthe research realm by enabling the Center’s staff to teach university courses andorganize trainings. The self-assessment showed that the highest level ofimprovement was in terms of knowledge related to defining a research agendabased on field-level problems. This is significant considering that the dominantpractice among agricultural researchers has been to undertake research withoutensuring its relevance to the priority problems of technology users. Meanwhile, thelowest level of capacity improvement was in the skills acquired for undertakingfieldwork. This finding underscores the need to focus more attention ondeveloping capacities for field-based research especially among researchers whohave been primarily involved in on-station work.

From the Individual to the Project LevelThe evaluation also examined two levels of the Center’s organizational capacity –the project and institutional levels. The degree to which individual capacities weresuccessfully transformed into project level capacities was demonstrated throughsustaining project implementation even as project leadership changed, expandingteam membership, and receiving awards that recognized project-level performance.

Meanwhile, the degree to which individual- and project-level capacities contributedto institution-level capacities for participatory research was demonstrated through:using the participatory methods in the Center-UPWARD collaborative project forother projects undertaken by the Center; expanding co-ownership of the projectamong the various program divisions of the Center; and producing project-basedpublications and documents that have become part of the Center’s collection ofinformation resources on participatory research.

Changes in Organizational PerformanceThe evaluation of the Center-UPWARD collaborative project showed thatimprovement in participatory research performance wasshown through the team’s successful implementation ofnew participatory research activities. Positive changes inorganizational performance were also seen as theproject carried out its planned activities, producedthe corresponding outputs, and worked towardthe accomplishment of desired outcomes. Thelonger-term organizational performance of theproject was also evaluated in terms of theeffectiveness, efficiency, relevance andsustainability of project processes and results.The study concluded that throughout the projectimplementation, the team continuously learned toimprove its participatory research performance.


Contribution to UPWARD Outputs and OutcomesThe evaluation revealed that the collaborative project yielded key outputs andoutcomes not only for the Center but also for UPWARD. The field-basedexperiences of the project contributed to UPWARD’s broader programmaticagenda by furthering the development the body of knowledge on concepts andpractices in participatory research; by contributing to the planning andimplementation of CIP’s rootcrop research agenda; and by influencing thedevelopment of participatory research capacity for other UPWARD members.

The NPRCRTC-UPWARD partnership highlighted the two-way nature ofcapacity development. Conventional thinking would view the Center andUPWARD as recipient and service provider, respectively. However, it was clearfrom the evaluation that UPWARD gained as much as the Center from thepartnership. All this points to the need to rethink the popular notion ofpartnership as a patron-client relationship.

Uses and Outcomes of the EvaluationIn recognition of the potential and actual contributions of the evaluation toorganizational development of the Center, both ISNAR and UPWARD were givenawards of distinction for the partnership with NPRCRTC, during the 25th

Founding Anniversary celebration in early 2002. In addition, BSU awardedUPWARD with a plaque of recognition as one of the outstanding partners of theUniversity, during BSU’s own Founding Anniversary celebration also in early 2002.

The NPRCRTC Director, with support from the BSU administration, spearheadedthe planning of a follow-up evaluation to examine the overall capacity andperformance of the Center. Upon the suggestion of the BSU administration, theteam also organized a series of seminars and workshops aimed at variousconstituents of the University. This was also a strategic step for the team to clarifythe nature and purpose of the evaluation, in light of various interpretations onthe agenda behind the conduct of the evaluation.

Meanwhile, UPWARD initiated parallel evaluations with other Network partners,drawing from the initial experience of the evaluation with NPRCRTC. Thisincluded: monitoring study on the outcomes of a training-of-trainors for farmerfield schools among a network of NGOs in Indonesia; evaluation of thecontribution of an UPWARD-Department of Agriculture collaborative project todeveloping the participatory research and extension capacity of district-levelagricultural extensionists and farmer-leaders; and design and implementation ofan ethnographic study on the development of participatory research capacity atCIP.

Findings from this study served as input to the development and design of anUPWARD International Course on Participatory Research and Development(PR&D), organized in 2001-2002. In addition, these also guided the developmentof a new UPWARD project on strengthening organizational capacity for PR&D insix South Asian countries, which was launched in 2003.


Contributed by:Dindo Campilan, Jocelyn Perez,Jovita Sim and Raul BoncodinEmail: [email protected]

Guidelines for Future Evaluations of Capacity Development Efforts

Some key guidelines have emerged from the evaluation that could be useful to thoseseeking to do evaluation of capacity development. These include the following:

1. Evaluating capacity development inevitably involves collecting sensitive informationthat can only take place in an atmosphere of transparency and objectivity.

2. Capacity development is a complex area that people in the organization need toreflect on and talk about to each other.

3. Everybody should gain consensus on what we mean when we say “capacitydevelopment”.

4. It is important to have common, useful, visual and conceptual frameworks to refer towhen we talk about complex notions such as “organizational performance” and“organizational capacity”.

5. It is important for all participants to talk in concrete terms (our organization, ourmandate and mission, our projects, our management systems, our personnel) and notin abstractions.

6. Using a case project (i.e., sweetpotato enterprise development) helped in providingconcrete examples and indicators in order to ground discussions and exercises.

7. Reflecting on an organization’s capacity development is a complex exercise. Itrequires an iterative process, i.e., doing things several times before they become clearand before being able to sort out the more useful examples and indicators from theless useful.

8. Systematic record keeping is important in proceeding with a capacity developmentproject.

9. Good ideas and important details get lost if these are not systematically recorded.

10. Keeping a written record of attempts to come to grips with organizationaldevelopment is valuable.

ReferencesCampilan, D., J. Perez, J. Sim and R. Boncodin. 2003. Evaluating Organizational Capacity in

Participatory Research: The Case of a Rootcrops Center in the Philippines. In: FromCultivators to Consumers, Participatory Research With Various User Groups. Los Baños,Laguna, Philippines. pp 215-225.

Horton, D., N. Alexaki, S. Benett-Lartey, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. De Souza Silva, L.ThanhDoung, I. Kadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I. Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R.Vernooy and J. Watts. 2003. Evaluating Capacity Development: Experiences from Research andDevelopment Organizations Around the World. The Hague,The Netherlands: ISNAR.pp 165.



owadays that participatory approaches to research are receiving arevived interest, it is useful to take a closer look at the state of the art ofparticipatory research in the Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). This paper provides a historical overview of participatoryresearch (PR) in CGIAR, points out deficiencies within the organizationregarding participatory research, and offers suggestions as to how participatoryapproaches can be integrated into the system to utilize their potential moreeffectively.

Participatory Research Activities Over the YearsParticipatory research is not new to the CGIAR system. Its history dates back tothe 1980s when first attempts were made to come into closer contact with farmers.The limitations of a pure commodity orientation, seen quite early by some, led tothe development of farming systems research approaches. Although this broughtresearchers and farmers closer, the question of whether farmers had an activeenough participation soon came up. This led to the development of the firstapproaches to do research and experimentation with farmers.

Participatory Researchin the CGIAR

N

3737373737

Participatory Research in the CGIAR 49

Some examples of this phase were the participatory plant breeding program of theCentro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the Farmer-Back-to-Farmer model of the International Potato Center (CIP). Some of these approacheswere well known in several arenas although in the CGIAR, they were restricted to afew pockets. The mainstream of biological scientists within the CGIAR remainedhighly skeptical and untouched.

During the next phase, centers took different directions regarding initial attempts.In very few centers like CIAT, work progressed and advances had been made whichfinally led to some institutionalization. More and more scientists becameknowledgeable about PR, and the core-funded system-wide program forparticipatory research and gender analysis (PRGA) was established.

However, for other centers, most of the early attempts were not institutionalized.The lack of clear coordination mechanisms and the marginalization of socialscientist led to fragmentation into many largely independent localized initiativesespecially at commodity centers where farming systems had initially been strong.

An important factor for the difficulties in integrating participatory approaches toresearch and development was the World Bank's agricultural policy at that time.The infamous training and visit system for extension which is firmly based on thetechnology transfer approach spread all over the world, thus making it difficult formore integrated approaches to innovation development with user involvement. Inthe CGIAR, the drive to go back to strategic research during the early 1990sseemed to mean the end of many of these dispersed participatory activities withinthe system.

Recently, however, there has been revived interest for participatory researchapproaches but now, for quite different reasons. International agricultural researchis in a crisis, with serious doubts being raised about the scale and nature of itsimpact. Criticism was mostly related to the lack of impact in eliminating ruralpoverty, which, among other reasons, led to the stagnation of funding. Donorsstarted to demand more visible impact and more farmer integration into researchin order to produce more relevant results. A contributing factor to the change indonor behavior was the experiences with public administration reforms towardmore accountability and client orientation in a number of donor countries.

Today, activities range from system-wideinitiatives on participatory research andgender analysis, to small andlargely unknown projects atdifferent centers. However,every center feels compellednot to ignore the donordemand for more farmerparticipation, and thepublication of participatoryactivities is well over-represented in the publicrelation brochures of manycenters.


Types of Participatory Research Activities in the CGIARUntil recently, most participatory research activities in the CGIAR were at the levelof applied and adaptive research or even technology transfer. Examples are:

q on-farm varietal selection, identification of farmers' preferencesq farmers' involvement in testing Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

technologiesq tree nursery management and disseminationq seed multiplication with farmersq validation of tillage and soil conservation practices

Quite a number of these downstream applications can be understood as strategicin the sense that they develop and validate methodologies that found widerapplication within and outside the CGIAR system. However, they are often notperceived as that. An interesting example is CIP's involvement in the developmentof Integrated Crop Management (ICM) for sweetpotato as a direct result offarmer-researcher interactions about rice-IPM in areas where farmers rotate ricewith sweetpotato.

There are, however, a number of examples of participatory research activities thatwere framed with explicit strategic goals like methodology development, such as:

q System-wide initiative on participatory research and gender analysisq International Crops Research

Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics(ICRISAT)'s millet breedingprogram

q CIAT's development of the CIALapproach and its bean and cassavabreeding program

q IIMI's participatory approaches to irrigation management and others

The State of the Art of Discussions About FarmerParticipation in the CentersOpinions regarding the value of participatory research and farmer participation forthe CGIAR cover a considerable spectrum. The one end is held by scientists whodo not consider participatory approaches to research to be quality science at all. Tothem, farmer participation means the end of good research.

Some see participatory research as a better means of technology transfer, which isnot the task of CGIAR. Nonetheless, among some CGIAR researchers, there issome consensus nowadays about the usefulness of participatory research foradaptive and applied research. Some argue, however, that this should also not bedone by CGIAR, but rather through the National Agricultural Research System(NARS), extension and non-government organizations (NGOs).

CIAL stands for "comité de investigaciónagrícola local" (local agricultural researchcommittees), community-owned andmanaged research services staffed byvolunteer farmer-researchers with links toformal research and extension services.


An alternative view has taken root during recent years: farmer participation shouldnot only be used for adaptive and applied research, but should be seen as strategicat all levels and stages of research processes.

Senior management has rather diverse levels of understanding, but at the level ofthe science council (SC, a new instrument, replacing the technical advisorycommittee), director general and board of trustee chairs, it tended to viewparticipatory research as a donor fad and a misallocation of money. There are,however, exceptions who see participation as critical, especially for research inmarginal areas.

This situation seems to be changing slowly. Since the adoption of the vision andstrategy paper at the CGIAR Mid-Term-Meeting in May 2000 and during the stillongoing change process, work is being focused more on poverty reduction andmore emphasis is put on the need to make use of participatory approaches ondifferent levels, like priority setting, research planning and for natural resourcemanagement (NRM) research.

The inseparability of research and development is slowly gaining greateracceptance and with it the responsibility some researchers are willing to take foroutcome and impact of their work.

Seen from outside, these developments may seem marginal and by no meanssufficient, but for the CGIAR, for its understanding of science, its role and self-image, these developments pose rather difficult questions and call for quitesubstantial changes with important structural and programmatic implications.Centers are giving different, not always compatible, answers to these questions andit remains to be seen how much the CGIAR as a group is willing to change.

Difficulties in the CGIAR with Participatory ResearchOne of the underlying reasons for CGIAR's problems with participatory researchis its narrow conception of agricultural research as natural sciences, partly due tothe widely-held view that good science is natural science. For agricultural researchin the CGIAR, social sciences are at best assigned a supportive function. If farmerparticipation is not to be understood and used only as field methods, itstheoretical underpinnings from the social sciences will have to be elaborated and aclear theoretical and conceptual framework will have to be elaborated.

Another core issue is the low degree of institutionalization of participatoryresearch in the system. This has implications for the strategic orientation regardingparticipatory approaches, for the number of scientists and managers withexperience in participatory research, for the level of understanding of itspotentials, for the attitude toward participatory research, for frame conditions likethe reward system, and for the possibilities to exchange experiences andnetworking.


The low level of commitment of senior management to actively supportparticipatory approaches is one of the reasons for its weak institutionalization inthe system. However, the problems raised in the following seem to be in a dialecticrelationship with institutionalization: they are reasons for the low level ofinstitutionalization and are in turn results of it.

Orientationq Agricultural research is natural science and

follows a natural sciences logic, with a fewingredients from social science.Epistemological questions are not dealt with.

q CGIAR has been focusing on data production andproduct results, not on process results.

q CGIAR's reward system is still very much basedon the production of data instead of impactand process results. Researchers have very littleincentive to do participatory research because itcarries the risk of becoming marginalized.

Understandingq Participatory research is often seen as a threat to classic

research paradigms and not so much as complementary.q There is some diversity regarding the understanding of demand-driven,

client-oriented or participatory research approaches in senior management.Its strategic dimension is not well understood by all.

q The potential of participatory approaches is seen only in adaptive andapplied research which is not seen as the task of the CGIAR.

q Commodity orientation of centers, which is still prevailing, hinders a moreholistic and systemic cooperation with farmers, which is especially difficultwhen farmer participation should move upstream.

Staffingq There are not enough senior researchers with experience in participatory

research at centers. Most researchers working with participatory approachesare young, on soft money and do not have enough incentives orpossibilities to stay. Problems with continuity and quality are theconsequence.

q The number of experienced practitioners of participatory approaches ingeneral is low.

q Practitioners of participatory research have often been outposted, therebyhindering exchange and better integration.

q Social scientists are still a very marginal group. In this small group, mostsocial scientists are economists, leaving a large blank on other pressingsocial sciences issues.

q A major drawback for a wider implementation of participatory researchapproaches is that traditional economists are often either highly skepticalof PR, or if not skeptical, without experience in participatory research.


Capacity Building and Exchangeq Experts for participatory approaches and methods who are hired for that

function (advise and help in research planning on how to integrate farmersin projects and programs) are lacking at most centers.

q There are too few opportunities to learn, either in workshops, trainingcourses, or in practical application.

q There have been too few possibilities to exchange and network forpractitioners, mainly because there were too few practitioners. Today, thissituation is changing with the medium of e-mail and since the system-wide program has started to tackle such problems.

q Similarly, there has been very little institutionalized collaboration andnetworking between the different centers. This has also slowly beenchanging since the advent of the system-wide program in 1998.

Strategies Regarding Participatory Research

Overall Strategy in the CGIARFor a long time, management’s strategy was to marginalizeparticipatory efforts within the system. It is onlyrecently that donor pressure for more impact inpoverty reduction and for more farmerparticipation is mounting, that participatoryresearch activities are being used foradvertisement and public relations. Today, itseems that a stage is reached where more roomfor participatory research is given. However, a clear strategy of managementregarding participatory research is not yet visible, not to mention effects on theCGIAR’s structure and organization as well as its procedures for research planning.

The intolerability of the situation is also clear to senior management. Along with awider refocusing and restructuring process, the CGIAR is now emphasizingpoverty reduction, and speaks of the usefulness of participatory researchapproaches and of the need for a better dialogue with “civil society”. The CGIARis however having tremendous difficulties to make those organizational andprocedural changes happen that are required for these goals to materialize.Departing from commodity mandates towards eco-regional approaches is onlyhappening slowly and haphazardly. Structures that would give farmers, farmers’groups and NGOs an influence on CGIAR’s agenda have until now not beenestablished and flexible procedures that would allow for more participation arestill on the wish-list.

An issue which makes any dialogue very difficult for most NGOs and farmerorganizations is CGIAR’s recent strong drive towards genetic engineering researchalong with its not very open and honestcommunication strategy on it. The“Biofortification challenge program” was the firstchallenge program to be implemented and it wasrecently renamed to the more “user friendly”

Biofortification is the geneticimprovement of the nutritionalquality mainly through geneticengineering.


“HarvestPlus” for reasons of better public acceptance. At the same time, thewhole biofortification strategy can be understood as rather patronizing, notcompatible with participatory approaches to research at all. The quick movetowards more genetically-modified organism (GMO) research without allowing fora serious dialogue with “civil society” triggered the NGO-Committee of theCGIAR to freeze its collaboration on system level since 2003. Dialogue does notseem to be improving, and it is not visible that CGIAR is actually doing much toimprove it.

In its 2000 vision and strategy paper, TAC had formulated a two-sidedunderstanding of “modern science” and of “exciting new prospects” for theCGIAR:

“functional genomics; new, powerful and increasingly affordable computing, informationand communication technologies; remote sensing and spatial modeling” and on the otherhand a “better understanding of human dynamics, social capital, and social organizationleading to participatory approaches to research and development and communitymanagement of common resources, i.e., forests, water, rangelands; and concepts ofintegrated natural resources management (INRM) permitting a more consistent system-wide approach to soil and water management research and to work on management ofcoastal environments.”

Until now, only the high-tech and genetic engineering side of the coin isvigorously being pushed forward on a strategic level, whereas all the rest has notbeen tackled and is left to the initiative on a lower level. Here, quite someimprovements can be observed with a number of centers’ programs: they are morefocused on farmers’ needs and more emphasis is given on the active involvementof NGOs and farmer groups.

Applied and Proposed Strategies of Participatory Initiatives in theCGIARPractitioners of participatory research within the CGIAR see an urgent need tobetter institutionalize participatory approaches within the system, which wouldrequire core commitment and more continuity. Participatory research should notbe left to young scientists with short assignments, but should be firmly supportedby management. More senior researchers are needed, who are knowledgeable orbecome knowledgeable on farmer participation in order to spearhead the insertionof PR approaches into the main programs.

A second issue of institutionalization is the need for more inter-center, system-wide networking and exchange. Such an investment would enable the CGIAR tobetter draw on its own experiences and to facilitate organizational learning. Relatedto that, it is hoped that lobbying, networking and publishing about participatoryresearch can bring isolated and scattered efforts to higher visibility.

Another lever for change is seen in donor pressure for more farmer participation.It is important, however, that donor commitment to the issue has a long-termperspective with multi-year funding, if changes are to be substantial.


Promoters of participatory research in the CGIAR put quite some effort intoattempts to produce hard data that should prove the impact of participatoryresearch approaches and their superiority for certain areas, like for example:

q faster adoption of innovationsq development of fewer white elephant technologiesq a better reach to the poorq more sustained farmer innovationq other research efficiencies like lower cost for adaptive research

An important issue is the question of downstream or upstream participation. It isseen as crucial to reverse the trend of applying and seeing participatory researchmainly within applied and adaptive applications. It is argued that the CGIAR'scomparative advantage lies in the application of participatory research to strategicand pre-adaptive research, such as:

q research methodology development, e.g., participatory researchmethodologies for use by the NARS, NGOs, grassroots organizations andproducer organizations and others, and approaches to participatoryresearch in common property management of natural resources

q pre-breedingq plant breeding with segregating lines and early breeding populationsq biotechnologyq IPM component designsq geographic information systems (GIS)q system modeling of resource flowsq decision support tools for soil management and land use planningq domestication of wild germplasm, including trees

How to Strengthen CGIAR's Capacity for ParticipatoryResearchA number of issues and proposals have already been dealt with in the previoussections of the paper. In the following, the controversial issues and the onesconsidered most important are highlighted.

q A crucial issue is the re-conceptualization of agricultural research. Thesystem should depart from its understanding of agricultural research asnatural sciences carried out in a natural sciences mode, and develop anepistemological basis for its research that integrates natural sciences andsocial sciences perspectives. Such a theoretical foundation is viewed asinstrumental to tackling poverty problems in marginalized areas byproviding a basis to seriously integrate the different disciplines that arelinked to rural development and to develop stable structures for an in-depth dialogue with farmers.

Farmer participation should not be viewed as a downstream activity for appliedand adaptive research only. It is also of vital importance that farmer participationis inserted into strategic research and priority setting. However, experience showsthat farmer participation and farmers' priorities cannot adequately be dealt with


through surveys, short visits or short participatory exercises. A real dialogue thatenables better mutual understanding requires time, effort, appropriatecommunication methods, a change of attitudes and behavior from lecturing andinformation extraction toward joint learning and researching, as well as somevisible improvements for the farmers involved which can only be assured inlonger-term interactions that have an impact at farmers' level. It is here, thatresearch and development are inseparably linked. Therefore, it is crucial to developapproaches that tightly integrate downstream and upstream applications of farmerparticipation for research.

q The sharper focus on poverty reduction and on marginal areas with highincidences of poverty is pointing into the right direction, as well as theshift from commodity orientation toward an eco-regional approach, whichis imperative if farmers’ reality is to be the basis for research. However,social and cultural factors are equally important for adapted innovationdevelopment, hence, the shift should be towards eco-socio-regionalapproaches. This could provide a viable basis for the development ofadapted concepts and methods.

q Research organizations need to be able to react on problems identifiedduring interactions with farmers and other stakeholders which wouldrequire much more flexibility than current procedures for priority setting,research planning and implementation allow. This is not only a questionfor the CGIAR, but also for donors and their funding, monitoring andevaluation rules and regulations.

q There is a need for the creation of anew support function that wouldassist other researchers in planningand implementation of researchprojects in terms of how farmerscan constructively be integratedduring the different phases. Thissupport would not necessarily haveto be provided by social scientists;he or she would have to beknowledgeable about participatory research approaches and aboutagricultural research to be able to provide such an advisory function. Thisfunction could also include training and on-the-job backstopping.

Apart from such a backstopping function, the balance between social scientistsand natural scientists in centers needs to be considerably shifted, if farmerparticipatory research is to be upscaled seriously. There has been progress in thatrespect in some centers, but certainly not enough on a general level.

q The higher importance given to exchange and networking is crucial. Muchmore effort needs to be made in this area in order to better exploit theknowledge within and outside the system and to promote organizationallearning. This is a challenge that senior management should tackle withmore emphasis.

Institutionalization of the participatoryapproach could be served better by:

q documenting examples ofparticipatory research in such a waythat others can learn from it

q designing participatory researchprojects with a focus on developingadaptable methodologies andproviding learning opportunities forthose involved, as well as for outsidersin all phases of the project


Contributed by:Thomas BeckerE-mail: [email protected]

q A difficult issue is the reward system of the CGIAR as well as criteria forstaff selection. There is little incentive for researchers to do participatoryresearch. This is certainly not only a problem of the CGIAR, but ofscientific institutions in general. However, it seems that the CGIAR is notat the forefront concerning a redefinition of what is considered to besuccessful research and a successful researcher.

q A related issue that also creates difficulties for better cooperation is thevery hierarchical structure of CGIAR centers. It appears to be quiteanachronistic and needs a serious revision, especially if partnerships andfarmer participation should play a greater role in the future. This concernsboth the number of hierarchical steps in the organization, as well as theirsometimes quite visible translation into working relations and socialrelations. Partner organizations with modern structures may find itdifficult to cooperate with many CGIAR centers in their current structure.

During recent years we have certainly seen more possibilities for participatoryapproaches to research, more space for discussions within the CGIAR, differentinteresting initiatives at some centers and helpful work through the PRGAprogram. However, expectations for structural, procedural and strategic changesthat would facilitate participatory approaches and dialogue with farmers’organizations and NGOs have so far not been met. Their realization is urgentlyneeded for a more fruitful utilization of different participatory initiative withinand outside the CGIAR.

ReferencesFujisaka, S. 1994. Will Farmer Participatory Research Survive in the International Agricultural

Research Centres? In: Scoones, I. and J. Thompson (eds.). Beyond Farmer First: Rural People’sKnowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. Intermediate TechnologyPublications, London.

Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer Participatory Research. IntermediateTechnology Publications on behalf of the Overseas Development Institute, London. 159pp.

Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. A Food Secure World for All: Toward a New Vision andStrategy for the CGIAR. CGIAR, Washington.

Thiele, G., E. van de Fliert and D. Campilan. 2002. What Happened to Participatory Research at theInternational Potato Center? In: Agriculture and Human Values 18: 429-446.

van de Fliert, E., R. Asmunati, F. Wiyanto, Y. Widodo and A.R. Braun. 1996. From Basic Approachto Tailored Curriculum: Participatory Development of a Farmer Field School Model forSweetpotato. In: Into Action Research: Partnership in Asian Root Crop Research andDevelopment. Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD),Los Banos, Philippines.


Networkingand

Partnerships

How Changed Relations Generate Impacts 61

How Changed RelationsGenerate Impacts

3838383838

owadays, very few deny the need for a genuine participatory approach. Butin practice, it appears that participation is not all that simple, at least in the fieldof agricultural and technological research or extension. Participation demandsboth deep attitudinal and behavioral changes. It is not a matter of acquiring a newrhetoric about one’s work, new words, new concepts, or new ways to communicate.The challenge is how to effectively work in a participatory way which means, in fact,changing one’s own working methods.

This paper sets out the main outcomes of a four-year research project carried outin Niger within the framework of an ENDA InterMondes (Belgium) andInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)- funded ruraldevelopment project. The research aimed at better understanding whichtransformation occurred at personal and organizational levels in the wake ofradical methodological changes, that is,when strictly applying the principle ofvillage centrality.

This paper must be understood as atentative trial to introduce acomplementary dimension to tackle aglobal problem of research partnership.

N

Adapted from:De Leener, P. 2003. How ChangesGenerate Impacts. Towards Attitudinal,Behavioral and Mental Changes in theFootsteps of Research Partnership. Part 1.International Workshop on “The ImpactAssessment Study on ResearchPartnership”. KFPE-GDN-World Bank: Cairo,Egypt. 15-16/01/2003. 31p + appendix.


How Are Impacts Generated? How do PartnershipsActually Generate Impacts?Impact generating is a matter of professional genre"unbuilding-rebuilding" process, or what could becalled professional development or genericdevelopment. Strictly speaking, as far as profession isconcerned, changing means creating a rupture withinthe normal way of doing what has to be done. Inmore developmental terms, changing meanstriggering a conflict within the genre of reference.The impact - the change from the change - is the issue of such a generic conflictfrom which lots of second order impacts are derived, precisely what can bepractically traced out. Figure 1 presents an empirical model of the flow fromchange to impact.

Figure 1: From Changes to Impacts

Changes inprofessional activities

(practical ways ofworking)

Change

Changes inprofessional genre

(rules and norms forworking)

First order impacts

Changes in reallife situations

(within and out ofthe office)

Second order impacts

Immediately tangibleDirectly visible changes

at personal levelsituations

Not directly visible Immediate tangibleDirectly visible changes

at personal levelsituations.

Impact generating process

De Leener, 2003

Village Centrality in Southern NigerIn 1998, a research team composed of members from ENDA TM, a non-government organization (NGO), the International Center for Research inAgroforestry (ICRAF), the National Agriculture Research System and IFAD wentto Aguié in southern Niger to launch a bottom-up participatory research project.

Three villages became the study sites for the four-year Valorisation des InitiativesPaysannes en Agroforesterie (VIPAF) Project. From the start, the project was based onabsolute village centrality where every decision must stem from a village analysisand derived from a community-based decision-making process. In fact, the wholeresearch activity has been planned, organized and implemented by a villagestructure.

Each village was able to come up with their own village action plan. Although themain plan drawn was an agroforestry plan, it embraced environmental activities andnatural resource management.

In this context, professionalgenre relates to a set ofoperating rules andpractical methodologiesagreed upon by a workingteam or a collective, inorder to effectively carry outits objectives.


By the year 2000, the project staff found out that the social organizationconceived and experimented by the three VIPAF villages spontaneously spread toneighboring villages. At about that time, too, project funding was suspended.Unlike other villages whose projects died with the lack of funding, the VIPAFvillages kept on carrying out planned activities on their own using their ownfunds. They kept improving the organizational setting in order to bettercircumvent social obstacles.

Over the years, other partners including those from the academe were broughtinto the project. The project itself also went through management changes, fromVIPAF to Programme d'Appui aux Initiatives et Innovations Paysannes (PAIIP) in 2000-2002, and then to Cellule Technique de Promotion de l'Initiative et de l'Innovation Paysanne(CT/PIIP) in 2002-2003.

How Transforming Professional Genre MakesPartnerships Generate ImpactsThe four areas of change at the professional level, as shown in Figure 2 representthe starting point for subsequent changes at the project and village levels.

Three areas can be emphasized: the way the project officers relate to other people,the way they do what they have to do and the way they think their activity andprofession in general. It appears that no behavioral nor attitudinal change can betriggered independently of any self-identity change, as if these two areas werelinked: behavioral change needs identity change and vice versa. Identity changethen results to transformations of inner dialogic activities: talking to oneself andto the other people within oneself in a different manner. In the end, we come upwith an interwoven landscape of personal change intertwined with organizationalprocesses.

Figure 2: An Interwoven Landscape of Personal Change

De Leener, 2003

Another way of seeing oneselfamong others, another way of

feeling seen by others, andanother way to see others

Identity change

Another way of thinking,reasoning, assessing and

construing

Attitudinal change

Another way of making use ofoneself with and among others

Behavioral change

Another way to talk to oneself and to others withinoneself, another way to make others talk within

oneself, and another way to talk to and of others

Inner-dialogical change


Surprising changes occurred both at the village level and among the project staffduring the course of the project's implementation. It seemed like a change in onegroup brought about change in the other group and the process is still continuingto this day.

In 1998, at the very beginning of the process, a first breakthrough took place at therelational level. Village centrality imposed a new way of relating to farmers and,consequently, a farmers' new way of relating to the project staff. This is the firstarea of impact: relational genre - how normally one has to relate to others(transparency, directness, sincerity, no subterranean blackmail). This major changeat the village level brought about a similar change at the project level in the fieldof interpersonal relationships (frankness, open-mindedness, free exchange at leastamong VIPAF staff).

Later, another tangible change occurredin villages in the way collaborativeactivities were carried outconcretely. This second area ofimpact is more related to theoperational genre - how normallythings must be done in aparticipatory way. Villagersimplemented among themselvesthe new participatory stylepracticed by project staff, leadingafterwards to significanttransformations at village levelin the same areas of change(debating, planning, decision-making, executing workprograms, optimizing localinnovations or initiatives).

Again, these drastic changes in the village brought about changes within theproject staff in the form of new ways of organizing and thinking about one'swork in the office. A participatory manner of working in teams among the stafftook place progressively just as within village communities. In the village as well asin the office, ways of carrying out activities have completely changed - and kept onchanging - for two years.

The process is not complete yet as a new change is about to happen in the office.When analyzing real-life village activities and in team working sessions on videos,the CT/PIIP team noted that something new was budding in the way people werereflecting both in the office and village particularly in how questions were raisedand formulated.

In comparing video-recorded village working sessions, it became clear that newkinds of questions and a new manner of elaborating them were being forged.Until recently, the majority of questions raised with villagers was more or lesslimited to questions about what to do or how to do in practice. Now, the


questions emerging during exchanges with the villagers were, "Why do?" "Whatfor?" "Why do that in this particular way?" "What to bring about by doing thatthis way?"

Questions are not restricted anymore to the action sphere (what is being done,what has been done, what is to be done) but have become directed towards peopleas persons (how am I affected? what does it change for me to do that this way?why do I do that this way?). Questions of this kind implicitly introduced a strongself-reflexive dynamic in the very heart of collaborative work, which is radicallynew.

It is too early to predict what will be the fate of this rising process or cognitivegenre. But something is clear according to what has been observed so far in thepartnerships in Aguié: when something changes at staff level, sooner or later,something changes at village level as if change was echoed.

In other words, if project officers change the way they raise questions, notablywhen closely collaborating with villagers, then most probably, farmers will alsochange the way they think, not only with project staff but also among themselves,as has been observed in relational and operational areas. Is this the third area ofimpact now in the field of the cognitive or mental genre? This is how a change atproject level exerts an impact at village level afterwards through genuinepartnership (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Tentative Schematization of the Impact Generating Process Both at Villageand Office Levels.

First area of impacts, relational genrecentrality principle imposes a newway to relate to farmers and viceversa (1). Carefully applying this newprinciple triggers off deep relationalchange at project level (2).

Second area of impacts, operationalgenre. New ways to carry outactivit ies (planning, making,decision...) with farmers accordingly(3) triggers off a deep organizationalchange at project level (4)

Third area of impact underway,cognitive genre. Will adopting newways to think in the office (5)introduce new ways to individuallyand collectively think at vi l lagelevel (6)?

VIPAF1998-2000

PAHP2000-2002

CT/PUP2002-2003

2

Village

1

Village

3

Village

6?4

5

Establishingrelationships

otherwiseProject

Project

Project Carrying outactivitiesotherwise

Raisingquestions

thus thinkingotherwise

De Leener, Cairo, 2003


Working with is Really Doing Another JobWhat does all this mean in terms of impact of partnerships? Practically, it impliesthat if a researcher wants to actually generate impacts through partnerships, thenone has to address the issue first from a purely professional side as it mainlyconcerns the way to do one's job. Remember that partnership basically meansworking with which really means working otherwise, that is, doing another job. If it doesnot work this way, the partnership does not change anything; at best, it wraps upthe same patterns of work in new elegant words.

The case of Aguié has shown how working with means transforming one's job into anotherjob at the same time as transforming oneself. In a word, partnership entails a trueprofessional revolution. This is what is really at stake whatever the kind or thelevel of partnership. Neglecting the basic professional complexity of any partnershipbuilding perspective, denying its very developmental nature, howeveruncomfortable, necessarily leads to disappointing outcomes since it clearly appearsthat it is not only a matter of improving one's communication style or facilitationskill (White, 1999), even if this is surely not useless.

Some Practical LessonsFrom a more practical point of view, some lessons can be drawn about impactsand partnerships.

1. The most fruitful way to carry out the research on impacts is probably todo it with staff called upon to generate impacts from partnership. Soanalysis turns out to be transformational. Making team membersscrutinize the details of their own professional activity (i.e., why thisparticular way of doing) through a self-reflexive arrangement whichactually helps re-experience already lived on-site experiences, paves the wayfor in-depth transformations. This is because pressure for change comesfrom the staff themselves as an outcome of their own research on theirown activity, and not through management injunctions. Professional self-analysis directly linked with real-life professional situations and activitiesproves to be a relevant alternative to training or any kind of smoothedtop-down driven change process.

2. Change is a global multi-sided process which combines at one and thesame time personal, institutional and organizational dimensions, bothwithin and out of one's working niche. Changes at one place stronglydepends on change in other areas. Moreover, the interconnectedness ofchange processes, that is, inside and outside, determines the depth andrelevance of change. In other words, when boosting change at field level,one has to foster at the same time an in-house change. The weakness ofsuch a connection often explains why so many generous endeavors topromote methodological transformations do not last: they are not echoedby organizational changes. In practice, promoting genuinely collaborativepartnerships means triggering change processes at these two levels:methodological (in the field), organizational (in the institution).


3. At the workplace, personal - behavioral, attitudinal and mental - andorganizational changes are facets of the very same phenomenon. Theirapparent disconnectedness is mainly a matter of point of view while theyinteract. Activity (what one does when at work) and professional genre(tacit rules of the game) interweave them closely. Doing otherwise obligesyou to get organized otherwise, which means changing operationallandmarks and norms, that is, the professional genre. At the same time, itleads to being (e.g., feeling, behaving and thinking) otherwise. In short, thissignifies that building true partnerships also means simultaneously"unbuilding and rebuilding" both professional organization and identitiesat work. Failing to clearly grasp this link may bring about thoroughdisturbances as professionals both at personal and operational levels.

4 . It appears that attitudinal or behavioral changes at work are not somuch the outcome of a deliberate decision but rather the output ofchanges within the professional activity: in changing one's way of doingthings, one is forced to find solutions to constraints or discrepancieswhich come along with the activity. This is what leads to behavioraland attitudinal changes. So, the picture is not the type of "I really wantto change my way", but rather "in order to do my job otherwise, I haveto change my way".

Changing one's way of doing things consequently forces the player tobecome - feel, behave, think - otherwise. This is the reason there is somuch emphasis on self-analysis of professional real-life activity (what staffactually do) rather than on the normative discourse (what they should do).This fourth lesson generates lots of practical implications. As a matter offact, working with is definitely not a matter of learning from someone elsebut from what one actually does. That is probably the shortest way tonarrow the gap between what one actually does and what one actuallywants to do in real-life collaborative circumstances.

5. In an organization, change does not occur simply like that. From the caseof Aguié, it appears that change needs to be experimented - thusexperienced - at small scale in a cell of the organization. In practice, it hasbeen triggered within a peripheral program (VIPAF) before penetratinginto the organizational niche in the form of a sub-program (PAIIP).Progressively, it embraced the whole organization (CT/PIIP). But such aprocess is possible if and only if the change dynamic is supported by themanagement or some kind of powerful authority, whether internal orexternal. This clearly means that the change process resulting fromprofessional activity self-analysis must be strongly mandate-driven.


Contributed by:Philippe Paul Marie De Leenerin collaboration withGuèro Chaibou, Hassane Amadouand Traorè HarounaEmail: [email protected]

ReferencesBakhtine, M. 1978. Esthétique et théorie du roman. Paris: Gallimard, 488p.

Bateson, G. 1977. Vers une ecologie de l'esprit. Paris: Edition du Seuil, 299p.

Bonnet, B. 2002. Appui méthodologique au bilan d'achèvement du projet et à la préparation d'un programme dedéveloppement local et de promotion des innovations paysannes (seconde phase de la mission). Paris: IRAM etAguié (Niger): CT/PIIP, 27p.

Bourgeois, E., M. Frenay and M. Blondiau. 2001. Attainment Value, Identity and Motivation toLearn in Adult Literacy Education. Three Qualitative Case Studies. Paper presented at theEARLI Conference, Friburg, 27/08-01/09 2001, 12p.

Clot, Y. and M. Soubiran. 1999. “Prendre” la classe: une question de style? Société Française, 62/63, pp.78-88.

Cole, M., Y. Engestrom and O. Vasquez. 1997. Mind, Culture and Activity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 500p.`

De Leener, P. 2002f. L'analyse paysanne des impacts comme outil pour le développement local. Maroua(Cameroon): PAAR/GTZ, 54p.

De Leener, P. 2003. Vers un renouveau des métiers du développement? La rencontre des saviors scientifiques etpopulaires à l'épreuve des changements personnels et organisationnels. Rapport complet: cadres théoriques, résultatset discussions, Aguié: CT/PIIP, Rome: IFAD, Ottignies: ENDA InterMondes, 288p.

De Leener, P. 2003a. How Changes Generate Impacts. Towards Attitudinal, Behavioral and MentalChanges in the Footsteps of Research Partnerships. Part 1. International Workshop on “TheImpact Assessment Study on Research Partnership”. KFPE-GDN-World Bank: Cairo, Egypt.15-16/01/2003. 31p + appendix.

De Leener P. 2003b. Self-Analysis of Professional Activity as a Tool for Personal andOrganizational Change. Towards More Effective Attitudinal, Behavioral and Mental Change.Part 2. International Workshop on “The Impact Assessment Study on Research Partnership”.KFPE-GDN-World Bank: Cairo, Egypt. 15-16/01/2003. 11p + appendix.

Leontiev, A. 1975. Activité, conscience et personnalité, Moscou: Editions du Progrès, 365p.

Valsiner, J. 2000. Culture and Human Development. London: Sage, 229p.

Vygotsky, L. 1999 [1928]. La signification historique de la crise en psychologie. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé,319p.

White, S. (ed.) 1999. The Art of Facilitating Participation: Releasing the Power of GrassrootsCommunication. London: Sage, 367p.


Research Partnerships: WhoPays and Who Benefits? 69

A

3939393939

gricultural research is a melting pot of various agencies and disciplines fromnumerous countries. Through inter-agency and interdisciplinary research, complexissues in agricultural development are solved both at the technical andinstitutional levels. Nevertheless, a closer look at the costs and benefits, and atvarious forms of partnership among disciplines, agencies, and countries shouldseparate dreams from results and give lessons for the future.

The Costs of PartnershipTime is one of the major costs of research partnerships. It takes years to produceresearch products that will make a difference in sustainable development. Howmany donors and how many scientists can make that kind of commitment? Whatincentive structure works in terms of research career, publications, materialrewards, science recognition, and impact on the state of the natural resources andon people's lives?

To do single discipline research in one institute in one country is difficult enough.Costs of research partnerships, called transaction costs, can be considerable.Obtaining project approval, negotiating institutional arrangements, obtainingfunding releases from donor agencies, and seeking government clearances-especially when more than one country is involved- can be horrendous. Researchimplementation can be held up due to such delays, euphemistically called"gestation period." But equally important is the negotiation of roles andresponsibilities, as well as the exchange of information needed to maintain thevitality and effectiveness of partnerships.

Research Partnerships: Who Paysand Who Benefits?


Another problem is how to obtain the legitimization of administrators who willnot be directly involved in the research, but without whose support the researchcannot be done. Not all such officials are paragons of virtue, especially whereresearch structures are very hierarchical. Vehicles, field allowances and occasionaltrips abroad facilitate legitimization.

Benefits of PartnershipIntuitively, people acknowledge the benefits of research partnerships. Partnershipsimprove efficiency in dealing with heterogeneous and unfavorable environments, infinding effective solutions to location-specific problems, in responding todeclining research support. Partnerships also help mobilize the conscience ofscience to address poverty. Nevertheless, more research on the quantification ofthese benefits is needed.

q By sharing the cost of participatory research and development (PR&D),partnerships result in cost-effectiveness (low cost, high inputs), whichleads to shared ownership of the research results.

q By sharing accountability in PR&D relative to the impact of success andthe blunt of failure reduces the anxiety, frustration and overarchingconcern in the research responsibility.

q By sharing the credit for research results and impact of PR&D givesmutual satisfaction to all concerned.

q Partnership focusing on a common research agenda and PR&D concernsand issues strengthens collaboration and cooperation among partners,because it is founded on mutuality with common goals and direction ofresearch.

q Partnership is complementing the limited mandate of some institutions towork directly with farmers and poor farming communities.

Problems with Homegrown Partnerships

Closer to home, a very important lesson learned through the years is that it is easier tonetwork and partner internationally than it is to promote intra- and inter-institutionalresearch collaboration within a country. Often, it takes external entities to loosen up thetightly guarded "turf of local institutions”. Those who promote North-South or South-Southpartnerships must be conscious of this, and deliberately play the catalyst rolerather than the “driving wedge”, which pulls local institutions farther apart.

Moreover, research institutions in the South that have limited resourcescould jeopardize their own interests if they enter into partnerships onresearch problems that are not their priorities. The costs for them couldeven be greater, but perhaps we have so much faith that theexpected benefits would outweigh the transaction costs. Otherwise, wewould not have this partnership syndrome, which preoccupies thescience community.


Typology of Unhealthy PartnershipsThere is a gray side to research partnership, which must not be swept under therug. Through the years, we have witnessed a typology of partnership, particularlybetween North and South, which may be characterized as "unhealthy." Althoughmost of them are things of the past, we must be reminded of what must not beallowed to recur.

Partnership of ConvenienceIn "partnerships of convenience," the Southern partners function as simply one oflegitimizing the entry of a research project into the country. It can also be anassisting partnership, where the South assists the North in what the latter does.

Contractual PartnershipIn "contractual partnership," those from the South gather the data, the North paysfor the services and owns the data. Eventually the North becomes the expert onthe problems of the South. This type of partnership has been practicedparticularly in socioeconomic research projects, which cover several countries andtherefore assume the nature of a major data-exporting enterprise. There isminimal, if any, research capability-building.

When division of labor is used in the partnership, the North thinks of theresearch problem, develops the protocol and finds the funds. The Southimplements the research, with appropriate funds and logistical support. TheNorth analyzes the data, writes the results and publishes, with or withoutacknowledgment of the South's role. In a patronizing gesture, the South ismade senior author regardless of whether he or she had written anything.

Reluctant PartnershipLess noble are "reluctant partnerships," where reluctant partners are preoccupiedwith how to take advantage of resources made available to both of them.

Non-Partnering PartnershipIn "non-partnering partnerships", the strong partner brings the research problem,research funds, equipment and expertise, and the weak partner provides theresearch site.

Double JeopardyLet us not think that all the sins are committed by the North. Let us touch on thereverse exploitation of the North by the South, manifested in misappropriation offunds, misrepresentation of facts, and abuse of resources and power derived fromassociation with the research partnership. We also have scientists from the Southbased in the North, who enjoy the status, privileges, perks and acquired valuesfrom the North but pass themselves as representatives of the South in the North-South partnership. This is "double jeopardy."


But those who receive research funds and travel abroad for project meetings butnever submit a research report, or submit a report that somebody else has writtencommit one of the greatest "sins".

Dealing with Conflict in PR&DIn PR&D, it is common ingredient for an interdisciplinary team, either comingfrom the same institutions or different institutions to work together, In such acase, there is the risk for conflict to arise, and if not anticipated and thwarted, maybe potentially counterproductive, harmful and threatening.

The advantages of an interdisciplinary team are many and varied, but the potentialfor conflict to arise is ripe and alive. A conflict that occurs in a team is generallyinterpersonal. The diversity of the people involved with differing interest, values,emotions, perspectives, priorities and experiences are indeed prone to conflictbecause of opinions, values and desires.

There is no single formula in managing and resolving conflict. The modes toresponding to conflict are various and these are some of the more practical waysof doing it.

q Assess the situation. Determine if there is an emerging problem thatmay lead to serious conflict. Conflict is apparent when open disagreementsabound; there is increasing lack of respect; polarizing people and groups;reducing cooperation; increasing or sharpening differences; and leading toirresponsible and harmful behavior such as backbiting, fighting, or namecalling.

q If there is conflict, communicate. Meet conflict head on. Set a face-to-face meeting with those involved. In communicating, communicatehonestly. Be honest about concerns, do not attack, query for feedback,listen, and respect each other's opinion.

q Probe for the causes, as it is essential in successfully resolvingconflict. This will allow you to choose a more practical and appropriatemanner in responding to conflict.

q Separate personalities from conflict. Depersonalize conflict. Addressthe causes of conflict and not the people concerned. Avoid the tendency toattack the person personally, as it will make the resolution of conflict moredifficult. Have a rational frame of mind and if your adversary attacks youpersonally, do not give him or her the satisfaction of an emotional reactionon your part and try to understand the reasons behind the personal attack.


Contributed by:Gelia T. Castillo, Perfecto U. Bartoliniand Fe L. PorcinculaEmail: [email protected]

Positive Partnerships, Positive LessonsThere are desirable partnerships like those which are evolutionary, from a teacher-student to collegial partnership, or interactive, intellectual partnerships active ingood and bad weather, in fields and in laboratories, through harmony andconflicts, and which endure throughout the research process and beyond.

Yet, it seems easier to define what is non-sustainable about partnerships than toagree on what is sustainable. Despite many promising results, we have yet to seethat sustainability has been achieved from research partnerships. Beyondstrengthening research capacity, more attention needs to be given to utilization andmaintenance of this capacity. Consequently, intra- and inter-institutional researchcollaboration within a country needs to be promoted more intensively thanregional and international partnerships. Additionally, the choice of researchpartners should be determined not by the weaknesses or strengths of institutions,but by the needs, opportunities, and assets the partners can contribute. No one iswithout assets, and even the strong can benefit from the weak.

Interdisciplinarity should go beyond the physical and biological sciences, hencemore attention should be paid to socioeconomic aspects of agricultural researchand development. Finally, more than research results, partnerships produce humanrelationships that transcend cultures, countries, ideologies, disciplines andpersonalities.



Developing Partnerships toPromote Local Innovation

4040404040

I n the past, mainstream rural development efforts were focused on technicalinnovations delivered from research through extension to farmers in a top-down,linear model of institutional support. In the South, these interventions generallyfailed to give poor families more secureaccess to food and to improve theirlivelihoods. Most of the introducedtechnologies were inappropriate forpoor farmers in marginal, rainfed areassuch as the drylands and mountains.

However, some examples of effectivealternative approaches to research and development (R&D) for sustainableagriculture and natural resource management (NRM) in marginal areas haveemerged. These approaches – often pioneered by non-government organizations(NGOs) – try to capitalize on the knowledge and creativity of local people and tocombine local and external knowledge in joint exploration and experimentation.Some examples are the Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation (ISWC) andPromoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) projects in several countries in Africa. Theseapproaches involve discovering and recognizing what local resource users aretrying to do in their own development and experimentation efforts, and buildingon these initiatives. They promote participatory action learning by resource usersand supporting agencies in order to develop the local innovations andcomplementary techniques further (Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001).

“Farmers” is used in this paper as a collectiveterm to refer to all people who produce and/orharvest from plants, animals and aquaticorganisms. It includes peasant/family farmerspracticing cultivation, animal husbandry and/or tree growing, mobile pastoralists, forestdwellers and artisanal fisherfolk, among others.

75Developing Partnerships toPromote Local Innovation

The challenge is to scale up the processes that underlie these and similarinitiatives, which have largely remained small “islands of success”. Scaling uprequires changes in the attitudes and behavior of the major actors in agriculturalR&D. If scientists, extensionists and other actors learn to recognize the localinnovations that farmers develop on their own initiative, they begin to see farmersfrom a different perspective than in conventional approaches of deliveringinnovations to farmers. They are stimulated to reflect on the roles of differentactors in the rural innovation system. It is upon this hypothesis that the initiativeknown as PROmoting Local INNOVAtion (PROLINNOVA) was built.

The stakeholders in R&D for agriculture and NRM are highly diverse, rangingfrom small participation-oriented or even politically activist NGOs to large,conservative government agencies. These actors have quite different cultures andways of working and interacting with others. How can partnerships among suchdiverse stakeholders be forged in order to scale up the process of change fromdelivering innovations to farmers towards developing innovations together withfarmers? What are the basic principles that need to be followed? What strategiesof building multi-stakeholder partnership are most effective? The experiences ofthe PROLINNOVA Country Programs in building platforms in which variousstakeholder groups negotiate, plan and implement joint action to promote afarmer-innovation approach to agricultural R&D can shed light on these issues.

The PROLINNOVA initiative emerged in December 1999, when representatives from Northernand Southern NGOs and some researchers discussed ways to forge partnerships to scaleup participatory approaches to agro-ecological R&D that build on local innovation andto integrate these into formal research, extension and education. The group asked ETCEcoculture (Netherlands) to elaborate the proposal further and seek funding support.

The objective of PROLINNOVA is to develop and institutionalize partnerships and processesthat promote local innovation in ecologically-oriented agriculture and NRM. The aim isthat the approach of building on and enhancing local innovation processes throughparticipatory action learning becomes understood, accepted and integrated into thework of research, extension and education institutions.

Funding initially came from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)and from the Netherlands Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS),which has allowed the participatory design of PROLINNOVA programs in nine countries inAfrica and Asia. In each country, a national NGO facilitates the process of buildingpartnership between the major groups of stakeholders in agricultural R&D (farmers,research, extension, education, NGOs, etc). This process includes the creation of aNational Steering Committee composed of representatives from government and NGOsinvolved in agricultural R&D.

The Country Programs are supported by an International Support Team made up of fourorganizations: the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) based in thePhilippines, the Swiss Center for Agricultural Extension (LBL), the Center for InternationalCooperation at the Free University of Amsterdam (CIS-VUA) and ETC Ecoculture. Theirroles include international coordination, administration, capacity building, advocacy,methodological support, web-based knowledge management, documentation andpublishing, and encouraging mutual learning through analysis of experiences.

PROLINNOVA is the first major initiative from the NGO stakeholder group under the GlobalForum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) to build a “Global Partnership Program” foragricultural R&D. In addition to IFAD and DGIS, the donor agencies that have supportedthe PROLINNOVA initiative in the past and present include Misereor, CTA (Technical Centerfor Agricultural and Rural Cooperation – ACP-EU), World Bank, Rockefeller Foundation,the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the NGO Committee of the Consultative Groupon International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).


Entering Research and Development Through LocalInnovationLocal innovation in agriculture and NRM is the process through whichindividuals or groups discover or develop new and better ways of managingresources, building on and expanding the boundaries of their existing knowledge.The innovations – i.e., the results of this process – may be not only of a technicalbut also of a socio-institutional nature. Especially in drier areas where livelihoodsystems are highly vulnerable to climatic risks, successful local innovations ofteninvolve new ways of gaining access to or regulating use of the natural resources,new ways of community organization, or new ways of stakeholder interaction.

Identifying local innovations undertaken on farmers’ own initiative is a first steptowards changing the way scientists and development workers regard farmers andinteract with them. The purpose is notprimarily to be able to disseminate thelocal innovations in a transfer-of-technology mode of extension – pickingout what scientists consider to be the“best” solutions that are most widelyapplicable.

Local innovations offer entry points forlinking local knowledge and formalscientific knowledge in community-ledparticipatory R&D. For developmentagents and scientists, learning to recognize and value local innovation andinformal experimentation by farmers is an important step towards engaging inParticipatory Innovation Development (PID).

PID is a more comprehensive term than Participatory Technology Development(PTD), an approach that has been promoted for many years by NGOs and hasbecome increasingly widespread. Basically, the activities involved in PTD are:

q Getting started (getting to know each other)q Joint analysis of the situation – the problems and opportunitiesq Looking for things to try to improve the local situationq Trying them out in community-led participatory experimentationq Jointly analyzing and sharing the resultsq Strengthening the process, often through improving local organization and

linkages with other actors in R&D, so that PTD will continue.

As innovation in agriculture and NRM goes beyond “hard” technologies to “soft”innovations such as in marketing, farmer organization and co-managementmechanisms, the term “PID” is increasingly being used instead of “PTD” toembrace this broader understanding.

Local innovations are locally developedto fit a particular biophysical and socio-economic setting and usually cannot betransferred in exactly the same form toother settings, especially not in the manydifferent environments in which poorerfarmers live. However, thedocumentation and wider sharing oflocal innovations can provide ideas andinspiration for others to do their ownexperimentation and to adapt newideas to other settings.


PID is not primarily an approach to research but rather an approach todevelopment. Most of the PID that is happening today is being done by farmerstogether with development agents – usually without the involvement of formalresearchers. This should be encouraged, as it will not be possible for formalresearch to work together with the millions of poor farmers in remote, marginaland highly diverse areas throughout the world. Local experimentation is necessaryto see if new external ideas – whether from other farmers or from formal research– can fit the local setting. Moreover, conditions are constantly changing, so allfarming communities need to be able to adjust to these changes. Therefore, localinnovation by farmers must be a never-ending process. PID is intended tostrengthen this process.

The local-innovation approach is an entry point to PID that starts with looking atwhat farmers are already trying, in their own efforts to solve problems or graspopportunities they have already identified. The joint situation analysis bycommunity members and outsiders is based on these concrete examples. Localinnovations become foci for community groups to examine opportunities, to planjoint experiments to explore the ideas further and to evaluate the results together.This process, around concrete joint activities, helps to strengthen communityorganization for development.

Institutionalizing “Innovative” PathsSpreading and institutionalizing this participatory way of carrying out agriculturalR&D requires the concerted action of all major stakeholders. Alternative andpioneering NGOs cannot do the job alone. They have to establish a dialogue andengage in a joint learning process with government agencies (ministries,universities, extension services), farmers and their organizations, other NGOs andthe profit-oriented private sector. All stakeholders involved need to change theirmindset and become willing to communicate constructively with each other, tolisten and to learn, and to find ways to work with each other towards a commongoal. For many of the NGOs, venturinginto such partnerships with governmentagencies represents a fundamental shift intheir own approach, as they usuallypreferred to follow parallel and separatepaths in the past.

The focus of PROLINNOVA is on buildingnational-level platforms where thedifferent stakeholders in agriculturalR&D meet and jointly work out theobjectives and activities of a particularCountry Program, in an attempt to bringstakeholders into partnership. Theplatforms are meant to provide space forcollective learning and decision-makingabout use of R&D resources in order toimprove the livelihoods of rural people.

From Stakeholders to Partners

In the context of agricultural R&D, the term“stakeholders” encompasses all people whohave an interest in the production andconsumption of food and other agriculturalproducts. These include – in addition to theprimary stakeholders: men and womenfarmers – research and extension agencies,education and training institutes, governmentpolicymakers, the private sector (e.g.,involved in input supply, processing,marketing and consultancy services),consumers and civil-society organizations.

The term “partners” refers to those actors whojointly plan and implement activities to furtherthe agenda that is, ideally, negotiated by theabove-mentioned stakeholders. In order tocollaborate, the partners mobilize and shareresources and agree on how these will bemanaged.


The concept of “platform” is based on the principle that a space for negotiationshould be created in situations where diverse actors define and struggle for thesame set of resources yet depend on one another for the realization of theirobjectives. Within these platforms, the actors would be able to establish dialoguesand clarify points of view. Those dialogues are supposed to facilitate jointplanning, or at least the creation of coherent plans.

NGOs Catalyzing Change Through PartnershipsThere have been many attempts in the past to establish research-extension-farmerlinkages, but these have usually been undertaken by government organizations,often in the framework of donor-driven projects. Partnerships need to be built upgradually and with sensitivity. Potential partners need time to understand eachother, to recognize and accept each other’s strengths and weaknesses, to knowwhat can be expected of each other, to venture into joint activities and to learnfrom reflecting on the process together. Here, good facilitation is key to allowcommunication and learning.

The PROLINNOVA program is based on the assumption that NGOs are in a goodposition to help build partnerships in agricultural R&D by facilitating “interactiveprocesses for social learning, negotiation, accommodation and agreement” (Rölingand Jiggins, 1998). Through their long experience of working directly withfarming communities, NGOs can play a bridging role between farmers and formalresearch. Many NGOs have developed skills not only in technical aspects but alsoin social issues such as organizational development, conflict management andgender sensitivity. In the PROLINNOVA program, NGOs are assuming the role offacilitator within and between Country Programs and between the local and globalspheres.

The NGOs facilitating the Country Programs have taken a complex task uponthemselves. Through the international action-learning platform of PROLINNOVA, theCountry Programs seek mutual support by sharing and analyzing their experiencesin building up multi-stakeholder partnerships to promote participatory approachesto agricultural R&D and learn from each other how to deal with the difficultiesthey face in this process.

NGOs Seeking Links with Government Agencies

The NGOs that were involved in initiating PROLINNOVA have long recognized thedevelopment potential of building on local knowledge and innovation, combining thiswith relevant external knowledge. To be able to bring the two knowledge systemstogether, the various individuals and organizations involved in agricultural R&D need towork in partnership. Over time, the NGOs realized that the lack of or weaknesses in suchpartnerships has been a major reason why formal agricultural R&Dhas been so slow in improving the livelihoods of resource-poorfarmers. There was obviously a need to exert greater effortsso that institutions of research, extension and education intheir countries would and could include participatoryapproaches as part of their regular activities. These NGOsnow give high priority to working more closely withgovernment agencies so as to capitalize on potentialsynergies and to make the government agencies – andthemselves as NGOs – more accountable to the localpeople and organizations they profess to serve.


Learning from the Partnership-Building ExperiencesThe experiences of the Country Programs in building multi-stakeholderpartnerships were discussed during the first international workshop onPROLINNOVA, held in Ethiopia in March 2004. Despite the diversity oforganizations present and the heterogeneity of their experiences, participantsdiscerned some common patterns and challenges and drew some practical lessonsfor partnership building.

Basic Prerequisites for Effective PartnershipsIf a multi-stakeholder platform is tofunction effectively in promoting PID,some prerequisites are the following.

q Internal motivation. Thepartnerships for institutionalizingparticipatory approaches will beresilient and sustainable only ifthey are driven by internalmomentum and energy – by thegenuine motivation of each and

This paper draws on case studies prepared forand discussions during the first internationalworkshop of the PROLINNOVA program held inYirgalem, Ethiopia in March 2004. We thank allworkshop participants and especially theauthors of the case studies: Guéro Chaibou,Adam Toudou and Alessandro Meschinelli (Nigercase study); Yang Saing Koma and Nhep Srorn(Cambodia); Joy Bruce, Malex Alebekiya andN. Karbo (Ghana); Amanuel Assefa (Ethiopia);Monique Salomon (South Africa), Ahmed HanafiAbdel-Magid (Sudan), the late Yves Marché(Tanzania) and Fred Kafeero (Uganda).

Promoting Local Innovation in the PROLINNOVA Country Programs

The action plans drawn up by the PROLINNOVA Country Programs differ, depending on theexperience and self-identified strengths and weaknesses in engaging the dynamics oflocal knowledge in PID and in scaling up the approach. However, they have someelements in common, planned in country-specific ways:

q making an inventory and database of initiatives and organizations involved inpromoting local innovation

q building capacity to identify and document local innovations and innovationprocesses and to engage in PID

q stimulating partnerships among farmers, extensionists and – wherever possible – formalresearchers, including university staff, in implementing PID on the ground

q participatory monitoring and evaluation of joint activities, outcomes and impactsq facilitating multi-stakeholder platforms for learning through joint analysis of on-the-

ground experienceq on the basis of concrete examples of PID in the country, raising awareness and

engaging in policy dialogue to create favorable environments for this approach

Partners in several countries involved in PROLINNOVA are interested in exploring and buildingup new funding mechanisms, based on equal partnerships by stakeholders in R&D –including farmers – in decision-making about the use of funds. Pilots are being prepared insetting up national “Innovation Support Funds” governed not just by “experts” but alsoby farmers. In this way, mechanisms are to be developed and expanded to give farmersinfluence over formal research, extension and education. Thiswill bring about a shift in power relations betweenstakeholders in agricultural R&D.

The Country Programs function autonomously but seekinspiration and mutual support from each other. Theylearn from each other’s experiences and join forcesto influence practice and policy both nationallyand internationally. It is within the Country Programsthat the most critical partnerships are being built andwhere the greatest facilitation skills are required.


every partner – rather than being driven by external donors. For thisreason, importance is given to own financial and/or other contributionsfrom each partner to the overall program.

q Sincere commitment from all partners. Through personal andinstitutional interaction and joint work, the different organizationsinvolved learn about each other’s strengths and weaknesses and how theircontributions can complement each other. During the process, mutualtrust and commitment grow, and the partners increasingly care about thestate of the partnership as a means to achieve their own and joint aims.They need to be committed not only to strengthening the partnership butalso to pursuing a strategy of change within each member organization.

q Good facilitation. This allows stakeholders to come together, to discussissues, to find common ground and to agree on joint action. In eachCountry Program, the facilitating NGO is in a difficult position, as it iskeenly concerned with issues in agricultural R&D yet must focus onmediating in the partnership and assuming as neutral a role as possible.The National Steering Committee needs to recognize – and the facilitatingNGO needs to accept – when it is advisable to bring in an externalfacilitator (someone who understands but is not directly involved in theissues at stake) at crucial points, such as for planning-workshops or toresolve conflicts.

q Shared responsibility. A partnership can function well only if allmembers realize that it should not and cannot depend on only oneindividual or one organization. Responsibilities and leadership must beshared.

q Openness and transparency. At the very beginning and to the greatestextent possible, the partners-to-be need to make their interests andexpectations clear, i.e., articulate what is at stake. The resources that can bemade available from internal and external sources and the benefits thatcould be gained should be openly discussed. This allows the partnershipto move together from a common position of understanding and respectfor each other’s position. Even though this is done at the outset, clarifyingobjectives and identifying stakeholders and stakes is an iterative process.The platform needs to be prepared to change its composition andstructure if and when necessary.

Addressing Major ChallengesIn building multi-stakeholder partnerships in the various countries, the challengesfaced were similar and daunting. The ways in which some of the CountryPrograms are addressing these challenges provide lessons for all.

q Collaborate in concrete activities on the ground. Ways of thinkingcannot be changed merely by theorizing. An effective way to trigger achange in the attitudes and values of the partners and to buildcommitment to the partnership is to learn together on the basis ofjointly-implemented activities on the ground.


q Clarify roles andresponsibilities. Overlapping ofroles among partners can be asource of inefficiency, confusionor even conflict. Clarity is neededabout roles and responsibilities.A well-defined governancestructure should be put inplace so that the process ofdecision-making within thepartnership is clear to all.

q Respect differences in paceof partners. Stakeholderorganizations differ with respect tothe speed in which they can take onboard new ideas, make decisions and act. These differences should berespected. Sufficient time should be taken to gain a commonunderstanding of the goals and strategies the stakeholders want to pursuetogether and to identify conditions for transparency and accountability, inorder to ensure that the process is jointly owned by all partners.

q Reward active partners. Ways have to be found to provide adequatereward to all active members for the time and energy they bring to makethe partnership work. This is not necessarily or only in the form of moneyfor carrying out activities under the program. Actors must be clear aboutwhat benefits they can expect to gain from a partnership – and what theyare prepared to give to others in the partnership. This can includeknowledge, recognition, contacts and the satisfaction of doing meaningfulwork.

q Avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. Bureaucracy tends to consumepeople’s time and energy, eroding the commitment and enthusiasm ofpartners. A suggestion based on experience in Ghana (Bruce et al., 2004)was to keep the partnership as informal as possible (also avoiding formsof address that denote hierarchy). Written agreements need to be signedwhen funds are being handled, but these should focus on the principlesrather than detailed procedures set in stone.

q Be aware of the inherent potential for conflict. The fundamentalchallenge in multi-stakeholder platforms is dealing with diversity andpotential conflict. One way to reduce the potential for conflict is to lay outclearly the roles, responsibilities and benefits of each of the partners, butit will not be possible to avoid conflict completely, especially in a platformwith the objective of bringing about institutional change and a shift in therelations of power and influence, in this case, within agricultural R&D.


Dealing with Diversity and Potential ConflictIn building multi-stakeholder platforms to institutionalize participatoryapproaches to R&D, diversity is the starting point – and is necessary for changeand transformation (Salomon, 2004). The NGO facilitators of PROLINNOVA cannotlook for partners only within their natural constituency, such as other NGOs withwhich they have been working together in the past or individual researchers whotake an alternative approach (and are therefore likely to be marginalized withintheir own institutions). Quick and high-quality results on a small-scale can beachieved through close partnerships of like-minded individuals or organizations,but PROLINNOVA is trying to reach out beyond this “circle of friends”. It seeks toscale up by interacting with “other-minded” individuals and organizations who arenot traditionally partners. Conflict is intrinsic to the process of building multi-stakeholder partnerships in which – by definition – each stakeholder retains itsown interests or “stakes”.

In each country, the facilitating NGO is creating space for potential partners tocome together and find common ground on which they can work towards acommon goal. Stakeholders as diverse as government agencies, NGOs and farmerswill clearly have different perspectives. The process of building and maintainingpartnerships must go through numerous phases of contesting theories and“truths”, deconstructing beliefs (e.g., about the abilities and roles of differentactors in rural innovation systems), mediating disputes and negotiatingagreements. This is part of the joint learning process.

In the different countries involved inPROLINNOVA, the facilitating NGOs havechosen different strategies, depending onthe atmosphere for government and non-government interaction within theircountries and on their own confidence inbeing able to handle complex multi-stakeholder processes. Some chose tomove fairly quickly into interaction withthe “other-minded” and directlyapproached decision-makers in the majorR&D organizations in their country. Theyhad to convince the decision-makerssufficiently of the value of the initiativeto have individuals assigned to theNational Steering Committee who could manage to carry out their normal workwithin the organization, at the same time as the additional tasks of building upgood working relations with other organizations in the platform and mobilizingawareness and interest within their own organizations.

Other Country Programs have chosen to start on “safer” ground: buildingpartnerships of like-minded individuals, creating and providing concrete examplesof participatory R&D – albeit initially on a small scale – and then, little by little,“touching” the wider and other constituencies. It remains to be seen how effectiveand efficient these different ways are in sensitizing policymakers, researchers,development agents and people in the private sector.

In Ethiopia, the National SteeringCommittee has become a microcosm ofmediated negotiation that is preparingthe members well for entering into thewider arenas of open discussion anddispute in day-to-day life: in meetings todiscuss other projects, in seminars andcongresses, in regular planning meetings.This National Steering Committee haschosen the strategy of feeding thesewider arenas, such as conferences offairly conventional professionalassociations related to agricultural R&D,with practical and grounded data andexperiences in order to stimulatediscussion and catalyze change(Amanuel Assefa, 2004).


This discussion of strategic choices to start the partnerships in the face ofdiversity to the point of adversity reveals how different the PROLINNOVA CountryPrograms are. It also makes clear that there is not a single “best” approach tobuilding multi-stakeholder partnerships. In each country, the specificities ofhistory, existing power relations, economic structures, cultural factors, politics andpolicies must be taken into account. Each Country Program must find its ownpath to move from delivering only externally-developed innovations to promotinglocal innovation processes on a wide scale. Reflecting on their experiences inbuilding partnerships and exchanging these experiences encourages the CountryPrograms to face the challenges, risks and potentials of engaging in ever widerarenas of practice.

As the PROLINNOVA program advances, monitoring and analyzing these experienceswill generate more lessons on how multi-stakeholder partnerships can be bestfacilitated. In the process, this should improve the functioning of thesepartnerships so that participatory innovation development can indeed becomeembedded in institutions of agricultural research, extension and education.

ReferencesAmanuel Assefa. 2004. Partnership Building for Participatory Research and Development: The Case

of Ethiopia. Paper presented at the PROLINNOVA International Workshop, 8–12 March 2004,Yirgalem, Ethiopia.

Bruce, J., M. Alebekiya and N. Karbo. 2004. Partnership Building: A Case Study from NorthernGhana. Paper presented at the PROLINNOVA International Workshop, 8–12 March 2004,Yirgalem, Ethiopia.

Reij, C. and A. Waters-Bayer (eds). 2001. Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration forAgricultural Development. Earthscan, London.

Röling, N.G. and M.A.E. Wagemakers (eds). 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: ParticipatoryLearning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Röling, N.G. and J. Jiggins. 1998. The Ecological Knowledge System. In: Röling, N.G. and M.A.E.Wagemakers (eds). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and AdaptiveManagement in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.pp283-311.

Salomon, M. 2004. Partnering in South Africa: The Kwazulu-Natal Agricultural DevelopmentForum. Paper presented at the PROLINNOVA International Workshop, 8–12 March 2004,Yirgalem, Ethiopia.

Contributed by:Ann Waters-Bayer, Laurens vanVeldhuizen, Chesha Wettasinhaand Mariana WongtschowskiEmail: waters-bayer@web-de



Campesino a Campesino inCuba: Agrarian Transformation forFood Sovereignty

C ampesino a campesino is a farmer-led movement that has been in the forefrontof sustainable agricultural development in Latin America for nearly 30 years. Morethan just a program or project, campesino a campesino spreads sustainable agriculturalpractices by building on farmers’ social capacity to generate agroecologicalknowledge. The movement “walks” on the legs of farmer innovation andsolidarity, and “works” with one hand for food production and another to protectthe environment. The movement has a “heart” that loves the land, family, andcommunity, and has “eyes” and “voice” to share its vision for a sustainable future.

The Campesino a Campesino Movement(MCAC) has been highly successful inspreading sustainable agriculture on theground. Hundreds of thousands ofsmallholders in Latin America have reclaimederoded land, raised productivity, andimproved their livelihoods. With the technicaland logistical support of non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) and farmerorganizations, the promotores of MCAChave succeeded where formal agricultural research centers failed: they havedecentralized and democratized the development of sustainable agriculture.

However, MCAC’s farms are still sustainable “islands” in a conventional “sea.”Sustainable agriculture is not the norm in Latin America, and agroecology doesnot greatly influence mainstream research agendas. If sustainable agriculture is so

Campesino a campesino’s operatingprinciples are built on well-known,people-centered approaches toagricultural development:

q obtain rapid and recognizable resultsq start small, go slowlyq develop a multiplier effectq small-scale experimentationq limit the introduction of technology

4141414141

85Campesino a Campesino in Cuba:Agrarian Transformation for Food Sovereignty

great, why aren’t all farmersdoing it? What holds backsustainable agriculturaldevelopment? The followingexperience from Cubasuggests that when campesinoa campesino is employed in apolicy context that promotesagroecology and campesino-driven development, farmersand their organizationsquickly make sustainableagriculture the norm ratherthan the exception.

The Campesino a Campesino AgroecologicalMovementCuba’s campesino a campesinomovement first began with theurban agriculture groups operatingin the multiple greenbelts aroundthe capital city of Havana. In 1995,several organizations, including theNational Association of SmallFarmers (ANAP), attended a soiland water conservation workshopwith 12 of Havana’s urban farmers.Afterwards, two farmers and atechnician put the new knowledgeinto practice. In August of 1996, inthe midst of Cuba’s agri-foodcrisis, the farmers conducted thefirst Cuban campesino a campesinoworkshop for their neighbors.

At that time, Cuba was goingthrough a very critical period andthe situation was complicated withthe urban economy hitting the bottom. So this was even more valuable becausethese folks received nothing except the spirit of helping others. Succeedingworkshops started in November and farmers were given three months to put whatthey learned into practice.

Then, more campesino a campesino workshops were organized in all of themunicipalities and many of the participants were technicians that worked in thegovernment’s citizen agricultural committees. A year later, the group had trainedover 600 urban farmers. Because of the need for an agroecological alternative, andbecause of the extensive and highly active presence of a national small farmers’union, the campesino a campesino movement grew very quickly in Cuba.

“For a long time, the priorities for agricultural developmentin Cuba were directed towards large-scale production inwhich mechanization and technical intensification wereconsidered the most important factors for increasingproduction and yields. As a consequence, there was aprogressive dependence of the farmer on external inputs,a loss of biodiversity, and a reduction in food security. Inaddition, the country was faced with serious economiclimitations starting in the early nineties that affectedCuban agriculture with the reduction of inputs, fuel andother factors of production that kept it from reaching thepotential and necessary agricultural yields for the volumeof food needed by the Cuban population.”

ANAP, The National Associationof Small Farmers (Perera, 2002:1)

Bread for The World, a German non-government, Christian aid organizationsupported the campesino a campesino work,and helped Luis Sánchez, an agriculturalextensionist and others from the Council ofChurches to teach the methodology to otherextensionists and researchers in the Ministry ofAgriculture. Sánchez acknowledges it was arocky beginning…

“We started to develop a process for“formation.” At first they resisted. They did notunderstand. The technicians did not want totake on something they had not beentrained for. They said, that might work inNicaragua or Guatemala, but not inCuba! Well, later they publiclyadmitted they had been mistaken. Theprofessionals realized that it was muchmore productive to work with thepromoters. The coverage grew. Thecampesino promoter was not just thearm of the extensionists, no! Theextensionists supported thecampesino’s own process. They helpedhim in that. The extensionists werechanging their own vision of things.”


“Through new experiences with projects, ANAPcreated the agroecology movement using thecampesino a campesino methodology. At firstwe were helped by a few NGOs. ANAP usedthe structure of its own organization. This gaveus the possibility of linking up all campesinos tospread knowledge to its very core. We had anetwork of national, provincial and municipalcoordinators that worked with facilitators ineach cooperative and campesino-promoterswho have best implemented sustainablepractices. We worked more and more withthese promoters, and with the help of thepersonnel that we have put at the service ofagroecology, more campesinos followed theexample of the promoters.”

(Miguel Dominquez, ANAP)

ANAP quickly expanded the campesinoa campesino project to a nationalprogram for agroecologicaldevelopment. The organizationpromoted campesino a campesinothrough its 50 rural radio programs,and distributed literature regardingthe movement to its national,regional, provincial and municipaloffices. The newly-dubbed “Campesinoa Campesino Agroecology Movement”was integrated into ANAP’s nationalorganizational structure through asystem that linked producers onproduction and on servicecooperatives through campesino-promoters and ANAP professionals. The program focused on recoveringtraditional agroecological practices, the validation and adaptation of newtechnologies and farmer-to- farmer exchanges (Álvarez in Perera, 2002). In 2000,ANAP held the first national gathering of campesino a campesino promoters in thetown of Villa Clara in Santa Clara province. The social base for ANAP’spromoters came from its cooperative and individual producer members.

From Food Security to Food Sovereignty: TheAgroecological Transformation of CubaIn a few short years, the campesino a campesino movement of Cuba grew to over30,000 smallholders. It took the movement nearly 20 years in Mexico and CentralAmerica to grow to that size. What made the difference?

q Clearly, the extraordinary conditions of the Special Period in Cubabrought sustainable agriculture to the forefront.

q The organizing capacity of ANAP also played a key role in the movement’srapid spread. Other important factors are the relatively high levels ofeducation and the excellent health care enjoyed by Cuban smallholders ascompared to the rest of the developing world. Cuban campesinos areproductive because they are secure.

q Cuba’s technical capacity in agriculture is not only very high, it is fairlydecentralized. Agricultural scientists and technicians are widespread, andwork directly and extensively with the many cooperatives throughout thecountryside. When the time came to concentrate their efforts on bio-fertilizers, integrated pest management, and other agroecologicalapproaches to farming, they did so quickly, in situ.

q The decentralized nature of Cuba’s technical capacity in agriculture allowsit to direct research and adapt practices to ecosystem-specificagroecological problems. The agroecosystem approach to sustainableagriculture has had big payoffs in Cuba.

87Campesino a Campesino in Cuba:Agrarian Transformation for Food Sovereignty

q The importance of secure land tenure and a guaranteed market for campesinoagriculture cannot be underestimated. The government of Cuba hadprovided many incentives for people to work the land, but the mostimportant are the agrarian reform and the mixed (private and state) marketsystem. Smallholders have easy access to land, credit and markets.

q Producers may either sell at their own, local fruit and vegetable stands,through their cooperatives, or directly to the state. Because no producerneed sell below the price the state will pay for their product, this priceserves as a floor on agricultural prices.

q While much of the Cuban economy is still experiencing difficulties, small-scale agriculture is booming, and smallholders are doing relatively well.

Food Sovereignty and the Cuban Campesinos

Many factors reflected a favorable policy context, not only for sustainable agriculture,but for campesinos as dynamic social actors in Cuba. The creative and social energy ofthe smallholding sector is wide and deep. Given the chance, they are not onlyproductive but agroecologically innovative. But what drives this policy context? Aspeech given by the president of ANAP to a campesino a campesino gathering helpsanswer this question:

“This theme (agroecology) is so important for humanity. But I would say that it is evenmore important for Cuba. We have talked about two very important themes here…agricultural sustainability and food security. But I would say that for Cuba and theCuban revolution agricultural sustainability and food security, and the sum of these two,is the same as national sovereignty and national security.

Cuba is the only country in the world with an embargo. No other country in the worldhas resisted a blockade like Cuba. Each day there are new measures. And we try toovercome this cruelty and maintain our dignity… And we Cubans resist. Each day weconsolidate our food security… The countryside is fundamental to the security of thepeople. We are working to reconstruct the countryside to have national security... Whatgives us security is working with our campesinos and our producers towards sustainableagriculture; using organic fertilizers and biological pesticides, as we have already doneby working with animal traction and the sweat of the men and women of thecountryside. This must be the future of Cuban agriculture!

In times of war and in times of peace, the best road is the road of agroecology. I want tosay that in good conscience, we have not walked very far yet on this road. We haveworked since 1994 with our partner organization Bread for the World in the project thatwe started in Villa Clara… with the methodology of campesino a campesino. And wewill continue this way because it is a methodology that allows us to advance firmly inthe work of sustainable agriculture.

In other countries, farmers have to store their grains because they cannot find a market,or the price is too low. In Cuba, the campesinos have guaranteed market for 100% oftheir production. They also have a just, secure price that provides them with economicviability. Cuban campesinos do not need to saveanything to sell later. That is agriculturalsustainability! The campesinos can save theirseed and what they need for food. And this isagricultural sustainability and national security.

If someday I have to tell someone from the city togo to the countryside in defense of the nation, thatcampesino will have food for their own family andfood for whomever has come to help. That isnational security and food security.”


ConclusionMuch has been written about the campesino a campesino movement. Most accountspoint to the movement’s horizontal methodology for innovation and diffusion.Some focus on the agroecological techniques for sustainable agriculture. Themovement in Cuba has many lessons to share in this regard.

q Cuba provides a structural lesson in sustainable agriculturaldevelopment. Good methodologies and techniques are important, after all,if farmer-driven sustainable agricultural development does not raise andstabilize yields, conserve natural resources, and improve livelihoods, whatgood is it? These conditions are all necessary, but they are not sufficient.

q For sustainable agriculture to become the norm rather than the exception,they must be accompanied by changes in agricultural policy that favorsmallholders and agroecological approaches to farming.

q If the processes for sustainability are to be sustained, the notion of foodsovereignty is critical. This implies that sustainable agriculturaldevelopment will require not just methodologies, but social change.

q The campesino a campesino movement has been supported technically andlogistically for over 20 years by farmers’ organizations and NGOs andworking in sustainable agricultural development. This partnership hasproduced a widespread social base, capable of generating many viable,agroecological alternatives to conventional agriculture. There is no reasonwhy MCAC could not generate policy alternatives.

q Because the campesino a campesino movement is so widespread, and because ithas support from both national and international civil societyorganizations, MCAC has the possibility of creating political will onthe part of government and inter-governmental decision-makers toimplement sound agrarian policies for farmer-led sustainable agriculture.The effect could be dramatic. Just look at Cuba.

ReferencePerera, A. 2002. Evaluación de la Metodología “De Campesino a Campesino” Utilizada para la

Promoción de la Agricultura Agroecológica. Centro de Estudios de Agricultura Sostenible. LaHabana, Universidad Agraria de la Habana: 95.

Contributed by:Eric Holt-GimenezEmail: [email protected]


Linking Farmers and Policymakers:Experiences from Kabale District, Uganda 89

One of the envisioned outcomes of more participatory, demand-drivenagricultural research and development is direct input from farmers into policyformulation and implementation. This represents a significant challenge from thestandpoint of organizing farmers and civil society to lobby for policy change givena long history of top-down policy formulation and implementation. Similarly,policymakers are challenged to enhance their responsiveness to civil society.

The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) was first implemented in2002 as part of Uganda’s Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA).Broadly, it aims to decentralize agricultural services and to foster a farmer-ownedand private sector-serviced extension system.

During the pilot phase of NAADS,farmers and stakeholders at thecountry level selected non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) to help insensitizing people about NAADS, ingroup formation and registration, andin agroenterprise selection. Uponcompletion, the contractedorganizations felt that the process hadcreated more questions than answers.Farmers voiced concern over financialmanagement of service contracts and

Linking Farmers andPolicymakers: Experiences fromKabale District, Uganda

4242424242

NAADS envisions a decentralized,farmer-owned and private sector-serviced extension system thatcontributes to a more market-oriented, specialized andprivatized agricultural sector.Principles intended to guide theimplementation of NAADSinclude: (a) a pro-poor focus;(b) more effective servicedelivery; (c) market-orientedproduction; (d) farmerempowerment; (e) gendermainstreaming; and (f)sustainable natural resourcemanagement.


the need to prioritize single enterprises given the complexity of their farmingsystems and production goals, while NGOs were concerned about lack of clarityon how to integrate “cross-cutting principles” (gender, equity, sustainability) andensure farmer representation. A shared vision emerged from these discussions,leading to the formation of the Coalition for Effective Extension Delivery(CEED) by research and development organizations involved in NAADSimplementation in Kabale District. These include the African Highlands Initiative,CARE International, Kabale District Farmers’ Association and Africa 2000Network.

CEED’s aim is to enable demand-driven development in Kabale District, and toshare the experiences derived from this with other development actors. TheCoalition’s immediate focus was to operationalize the NAADS framework througha participatory action learning (PAL) process at the local level, enabling farmers toidentify and address structural bottlenecks hindering the implementation ofNAADS.

Facilitating Grassroots ParticipationThe following steps were followed in facilatating or encouraging grassrootsparticipation:

1. Identifying Stakeholder ConcernsThe Coalition began to formulate anintervention strategy by systematicallydocumenting the concerns of diverseactors about the NAADS process. Thiswas desirable because it capturedpriority issues that are situation-oractor-specific. This was needed at thelocal level where wealth, age, genderand levels of political prestige arelikely to influence what priorityissues emerge. It is equallyimportant at other levels within theNAADS structure, where one’s positioninfluences how problems are perceived.

Representatives of different actors within the NAADS system were interviewed toidentify key “hot spots” by listing and prioritizing the problems that have arisenthroughout the NAADS implementation process. Significant overlap in the issuesidentified by different stakeholders (Table 1) indicate that the issues are systemic(felt throughout the system) and of high priority.


2. Identify Critical BottlenecksTwo primary bottlenecks were found to contribute to identified “Hot Spots” andhinder the spontaneous decentralization of decision-making under NAADS:

q Ineffective information flow.While NAADS policy dictatesdecentralization of roles andresponsibilities, poorcommunication of policyguidelines hindered farmers’understanding of their rightsand roles.

q Usurpation of decision-makingauthority. The failure of actors to fullyinternalize their new roles andresponsibilities under a decentralizeddecision-making model allowed theprocess to be co-opted (bothintentionally and unintentionally) bymore powerful actors at all levels.

Table 1. ‘Hot Spots’ Identified by Diverse Actors in the NAADS System

Hot Spot Dimensions of the ProblemAgroenterpriseselection/development

Roles andresponsibilities

Time is too short to address complex selection criteria (sustainability,equity, profitability, capital); the principle of enterprise specialization isquestioned.

Ambiguity of roles and responsibilities in NAADS implementation manualand absence of clear checks and balances in operations, contributingto abuse of funds and usurpation of decision-making authority.

Funding andfinancialaccountability

Inclusivenessa n dempowerment

Capital for inputs does not accompany service provision; disbursementnot synchronous with agricultural cycle; distribution is inequitable (flatrate irrespective of sub-county population) and insufficient; sub-countyfund allocation not transparent.

Farmer fora not considered representative; equity is not operationalized foragroenterprise or within program design; farmer capacity to effectchange and awareness of legal basis for empowerment is still lacking.

Insufficient quality of service providers; required qualifications (diploma)limit use of local experts; coverage is biased toward more accessiblevillages and farms; farmers lack control over contracting; monitoring ofservices is ineffective.

Servicedelivery


3. Formalize PartnershipCEED members formalized their partnership through a Memorandum ofUnderstanding that clearly specified the objective of the partnership, its guidingvalues, and the responsibilities of member organizations. The primary objective asdefined by CEED members is to build people’s capacity to influence policies,structures and systems that affect their livelihood and access to agriculturalservices.

4. Participatory Action Learning (PAL)The core approach to engage communities in analysis and improvement of policyformulation and implementation has been the PAL process at the sub-countylevel. The objective of PAL has been to work through major hot spots, focusingon critical bottlenecks that hinder effective implementation of either NAADSpolicy or of the values underpinning these policies (in cases where the policy itselfis somehow deficient).

Participatory action learning is composed of a series of steps, including: planning,action, reflection and re-planning (Figure 1). Facilitating farmers through criticalreflection and action enabled them to target the “power and informationbottleneck” at sub-county level and within the farmer forum itself. This led to theformation of parish-level councils composed of representatives of farmers’groups in each village. This independent council links the grassroots with the sub-county farmer fora, providing a means for farmers to advocate for greaterrepresentation within the farmer fora as well as upward throughout the NAADSstructure.

5. Interfacing and AdvocacyThe Coalition interfaces with both the NAADS Secretariat and farmers’organizations at the sub-county level. Figure 2 shows the linkage between civilsociety and policymakers under NAADS, as facilitated by CEED.

Figure 1. Participatory Action Learning Loop

Action

Reflection

ModifiedAction

Planning


This approach yielded the following successes/accomplishments:

q Led to the emergence of new farmer institutions (parish-level farmer foraand councils) to improve farmer representation

q Opened a gateway for bringing in the views of farmers’ groups and forgingbetter representation within the farmer fora

q Formalized the linkage mechanisms between CEED, the NAADSsecretariat, and farmers’ groups

q Secured NAADS’ funding for the Participatory Action Learning (PAL)process in Kabale District and a national survey on key lessons from roll-out of the NAADS program

q Addressed the concerns of the NAADS secretariat to strengthen thelinkage between localized learning and national policies

Figure 2. An Organizational Model of CEED-Facilitated Linkages Between Civil Societyand Policymakers under NAADS

NAADSSecretariat

(Policymakers)

CEED Coalition(Facilitators)

PolicyDecisions

AdvocacyAdvocacy

InformationNeeds

Feedback Facilitation, Information

Service providers Farmer Groups

Sub-CountyFarmer Fora

NAADS Sub-CountyCoordinator

NAADS DistrictCoordinator

District FarmerForum

{

Parish FarmerFora

(Parish Councils)

CEED DistrictTeam

CEED NationalTeam

The linkage between individual farmer groups and the sub-county farmer fora should be strong according to theNAADS framework, but in reality it is very weak. The parish-level farmer fora that emerged through the actionlearning process are designed to address this deficiency.

Implementationpathway


S/C NAADSCoordinator

FarmerGroups

ServiceProvider

Sub-CountyFarmer Fora

Tendency forUni-directional flow of

information; sub-countyNAADS Coordinator directs

Farmer Fora

One-way flow of information;farmers are passive recipients &

lack control over process

Case Examples

A critical bottleneck was identified at the sub-county level,where funds are disbursed by the Secretariat, contractsare made, and several key actors (NAADS, localgovernment, farmer representatives) interact. The lack ofclear roles, and thus of clear monitoring criteria, hasenabled the abuse of roles, authority and funds.

Staff from the top-down extension organizations thatNAADS is designed to replace now work for NAADS, andcontinue to give directives on how farmers shouldproceed. Service providers and farmers’ fora -accustomed to such top-down directives - often adhereto them, further undermining the program’s aims. Lackof transparency in the use of funds has also opened thedoor to corruption and limited quality assurance inservice contracting. This is now being addressedthrough PAL processes in which farmers test approachesto overcome these bottlenecks.

Directive tofarmers to take“good advice”

from government

Two-way flowof information(and funds?)

Sub-County (S/C) Bottleneck to Demand-Driven Service Provision


Successes and ChallengesSome of the key successes and challenges of the Coalition’s experiences areoutlined below, and serve as the basis for ongoing learning as CEED works toenhance farmer-owned development processes in Kabale District and beyond.

Several important sucesses have emerged from the PAL process. Of key importanceis the decision of farmers to advocate directly with the Secretariat for policyreforms, and to contest the usurpation of power and decision-making at the sub-county level. The Secretariat has now expressed a willingness to consider farmerservice providers and have allocated funds for the development of processes forovercoming the power dynamics currently hindering program success.

Contributed by:Laura German, Ann Stroud,Chris Opondo and Beda MwebesaEmail: [email protected]

Referencesde Grassi, A. and P. Rosset. 2003. A New Green Revolution in Africa? Myths and Realities of

Agriculture, Technology and Development. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Food and DevelopmentPolicy, University of California at Berkeley, USA.

NAADS. 2000. National Agricultural Advisory Services Programme: Master Document of theNAADS Task Force and Joint Donor Groups. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture,Animal Industry and Fisheries.

Opondo, C., M. Beda, K. Emily, K. Rick and T. Benson. 2004. Putting “Demand-Driven Services”into Practice: Experiences of Parish Farmer Fora and Councils from Kabale District.Unpublished Manuscript, available upon request.

q Farmers are able to identify structuralconstraints to empowerment, areengaged in PAL & seeking solutions,and advocate directly withSecretariat.

q Negotiation within the Coalition tobridge member organizations’worldviews on approaches (researchand facilitation), resources and skillbase.

q NAADS Secretariat is open torestructuring implementation andpolicy guidelines.

q Summarizing results quickly, so as toinfluence policies implemented duringprogram roll-out.

q The tendency for farmers to see thePAL process as external to farmergroups & farmer fora makes itslegitimacy and full participation achallenge.

q Maintaining legitimacy vis-à-visNAADS and powerful sub-countyactors, given the tendency of vestedinterests to try to de-legitimize the PALprocess.

Successes Challenges



entral Luzon region is one of the top ten producers of sweetpotato in thePhilippines with an estimated production area of 10,000 hectares. According tothe Department of Agriculture (DA), sweetpotato farming in the region feeds notless than 5,000 farming households, most of which are in the provinces of Tarlacand Bataan.

The reported average yield of sweetpotato in the region is 3.6 tons. This isconsidered very low compared to the yield of other countries. From earlierdiagnostic surveys, low yields are attributed to scarcity of good quality plantingmaterials, poor soil fertility, high incidence of pests and diseases, lack of technicalsupport, flooding, drought and other environmental factors.

The Sweetpotato Disease: Camote KulotA sweetpotato disease called camote kulot was first observed in Tarlac in 1991.Through the years, it has gradually spread to other areas affecting sweetpotatoplantations in most of the municipalities ofCentral Luzon. The disease has caused yield lossesof more than 50%. Infection is due to the use ofcontaminated planting materials.

In Bataan, farmers stopped planting sweetpotatofor one year. Most of the varieties grown in theregion are susceptible to camote kulot and this hascaused the loss of “Bureau”, a popular variety withgood agronomic characteristics.

C

Multi-Stakeholders Collaborationin Fighting a Sweetpotato Diseasein the Philippines

4343434343

Before the 1990s, farmers fromTarlac and Bataan purchasedplanting materials from eachother. But since the outbreak ofthe disease, Tarlac farmers hadto depend on nearby Bataanfor their requirements and thiscontinuous exchange ofplanting materials aggravatedthe spread of the disease.

Multi-Stakeholders Collaboration in Fighting aSweetpotato Disease in the Philippines 97

Multi-Stakeholders Collaboration to Fight Camote KulotBattling the camote kulot disease and reviving the sweetpotato industry of the regiontook, and continues to take, the collective action of stakeholders.

The International Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Researchand Development (CIP-UPWARD) facilitated preliminary discussions betweenand among various stakeholders. The series of consultations paved the way forcontinuous and more frequent conduct of assessment and planning workshopsparticipated in by most of the institutions involved in sweetpotato research anddevelopment (R&D). The workshops not only defined the priority issues andidentified different stakeholders that can deal with specific issues and challenges,but also served as venues for collaborative learning and action.

Table 1 shows the different stakeholders of sweetpotato virus research anddevelopment and their respective contributions to the production of cleanplanting materials (CPM) based on their interest and mandates.

Table 1. List of Stakeholders and their Contributions to Sweetpotato-CPM Researchand Development

Stakeholders Contributions to Sweetpotato-CPMResearch and Development

Farmers q Local knowledge on sweetpotato root and plantingmaterials production

q Land and labor for on-farm experimentsq Assistance in setting up, implementing and evaluating

experiments, data collection, analysis and interpretationq Participation in farmer field schools (FFS)q Rapid multiplication of CPM inside modified nethousesq CPM production in multiplication farms

Farmer Cooperatives q Promotion of CPM and other sweetpotato Integrated CropManagement (ICM) technologies

q Procurement and distribution of planting materialsq Credit and marketing support for sweetpotato productionq Rapid multiplication of CPM inside modified nethouses

Local Government Units(LGU) through the Offices ofthe Provincial andMunicipal Agriculturists

q CPM production in multiplication farmsq Conducting farmer field schools on CPM production and

utilizationq Extension of CPM and other sweetpotato ICM technologiesq Credit and marketing support for CPM productionq Rapid multiplication of CPM in nethouses

Land Bank of thePhilippines-Tarlac

q Credit support for sweetpotato production including cost ofCPM

Tarlac College of Agriculture(TCA)

q Identification and characterization of causal agentq Determining extent and distribution of various diseasesq Cleaning up of sweetpotato varietiesq Tissue culture/production of mother plantsq Rapid multiplication of CPM in nethousesq CPM production in multiplication farmsq Coordinating establishment of CPM production and

distribution systemq Assessing agronomic performance of CPM in lahar and non-

lahar areasq Assessing socio-economic impacts of CPMq Developing information-education-communication (IEC)

materials on virus disease management and on CPMproduction and utilization

q Conduct Training of Trainors (TOT), FFS and other learningactivities on CPM production and utilization


Stakeholders Contributions to Sweetpotato-CPMResearch and Development

Bataan State College (BSC) q Rapid multiplication of CPM inside nethouses in Bataanq CPM production in multiplication farmsq Assessing performance of CPM in Bataanq Sweetpotato varietal adaptability trials in Bataan

Philippine RootcropsResearch and TrainingCenter(PhilRootcrops)

q Identification and characterization of causal agentsq Determining extent and distribution of various diseasesq Identification of alternate hostsq Screening of resistant/tolerant varietiesq Determining effects of virus diseases on yield and quality of

sweetpotatoq Development of virus disease management componentsq Development of IEC materials on virus disease management

Northern PhilippineRootcrops Research andTraining Center

q Rapid multiplication of CPM inside nethouses in La UnionProvince

Central Luzon StateUniversity (CLSU)

q Tissue culture/production of mother plantsq Rapid multiplication of CPM inside nethouses

University of the Philippinesat Los Baños (UPLB)

q Identification and characterization of causal agentq Determining extent and distribution of various diseasesq Developing resistant varietiesq Assessing agronomic performance of CPMq Assessing supply and demand of CPM

Department of Agriculture-Central Luzon IntegratedAgricultural ResearchCenter for LowlandDevelopment(DA-CLIARCLD)

q Rapid multiplication of CPM inside nethousesq CPM production in multiplication farms

q Providing financial and technical support for CPM productionand utilization

DA-Regional Field Unit 3

DA-Bureau of AgriculturalResearch (BAR)

q Providing financial and technical support for sweetpotatovirus disease management

Philippine Council forAgriculture, Forestry andNatural Resources Researchand Development(PCARRD)

q Providing financial and technical support for developing virusresistant varieties of sweetpotato

q Providing financial and technical support for virus diseaseresearch and development as well as CPM production andutilization

CIP-UPWARD q Providing financial and technical support for capacity buildingon FFS and farmer participatory research

q Providing financial and technical support for IEC materialsdevelopment on CPM production and utilization

q Providing financial and technical support for sweetpotatovirus disease research and development

q Providing financial and technical support for sweetpotatoproduction, marketing and utilization research anddevelopment

Collective Actions of Stakeholders

Understanding Camote KulotAs shown in the table, PhilRootcrops, UPLB and TCA conducted basic researchon the disease itself and its causal organisms. CIP-UPWARD provided technicalassistance in identifying viruses.

Table 1. List of Stakeholders and their Contributions to Sweetpotato-CPM Research andDevelopment... continued


q Cause of and extent of the disease. Camote kulot is caused by acombination of two or more of the eight viruses attacking sweetpotato:Feathery Mottle Virus (SPFMV), Mild Mottle Virus (SPMMV), LatentVirus (SPLV), Chlorotic Flecks Virus (CFV), C-6 Virus (C-6), MildSpeckling Virus (SPMSV), Caulimo-like Virus (Cal V) and Chlorotic StuntVirus (CSV). An infection of SPFMV alone would not manifest severesymptoms but if SPCV and other viruses were present with SPFMV,symptoms became severe. Laboratory test results indicated that three tofive viruses simultaneously infect most plants, with SPFMVbeing the most prevalent virus.

q Disease transmission and sources of infection.Camote kulot is transmitted by means of insect vectors likeaphids and white flies. Transmission of the disease byaphids is non-persistent while whiteflies transmit itin a semi-persistent manner. The disease canlikewise be transmitted mechanically and bygrafting.

Certain weed species were found to carry thesweetpotato virus. These included kudzu(Calopogonium muconoides), centrosema (Centrosemapubescens), morning glory (Ipomoea triloba) and somespecies of Amaranthaceae and Convulvulaceae. Kudzuand morning glory were capable of transmitting SPFMV backto sweetpotato through aphids (Aphis gossypii).

q Yield-loss studies. Yield loss studies for two seasons using threedifferent varieties were done to determine the effect of virus-infectedsweetpotato planting materials on root yield and quality. The study usedtwo levels of infection: SPFMV alone and virus complex that consisted offive viruses. In the first cropping, there was yield reduction of 5%-20% ifinfected by SPFMV alone, and 30%-45% when affected by the viruscomplex. In the second cropping, SPFMV reduced herbage yield by 25%,weight of marketable roots by 31%, starch content by 14% and dry matterby 8%. The virus complex caused reduction of 46% in herbage yield, 52%in weight of marketable roots, 20% in starch content and 10% in drymatter.

There was no difference in eating quality when the roots were affected withSPFMV alone. When affected with the virus complex, Super Bureau (or VSP 6)became sour with a bitter aftertaste and became watery.

Managing Camote KulotOnce the cause of the disease was known, plant breeders from UPLB andPhilRootcrops identified and/or developed virus resistant or tolerant varieties.CLSU, TCA and DA-CLIARCLD conducted research on the production andutilization of CPM of sweetpotato. The use of CPM significantly reduced theincidence of the camote kulot disease and markedly increased the yield.


q Resistant varieties. Adaptability trials involving new varieties wereconducted to increase genetic diversity of sweetpotato in Central Luzon.In two and a half years of trials, no resistant genotype has been foundalthough several promising tolerant varieties have been identified. Thepossibility of re-introducing Bureau, an "old" but moderately tolerantvariety to the virus complex can be considered.

q Clean planting materials. Planting materials were cleaned of virus andreproduced in a tissue culture laboratory. Plantlets from the laboratorywere then grown in pots in station net-houses to produce mother plantsand then multiplied to produce single node cuttings. These weretransplanted to multiplication farms or reproduced further in municipalnet-houses before these were used for storage root production. SuperBureau variety has been cleaned up and its performance has been verifiedin both the lahar and non-lahar-laden areas of Tarlac.

Building Capacities to Fight Camote KulotSeveral stakeholders contributed to the capability enhancement of farmers andagricultural technicians.

CIP-UPWARD supported the attendance of team members in learning workshopson FFS and farmer participatory research held in Indonesia, Bolivia and Thailand.The team also shared their experiences in in-country workshops on participatoryresearch and development (PR&D) and participatory monitoring and evaluation(PM&E). Through these workshops, the members were able to observe howvarious approaches in PR&D were implemented and managed.

During meetings with local governments of Tarlac and Bataan, the PR&D teamrequested that agricultural technicians be assigned to help in the SweetpotatoClean Planting Material Production (SP-CPM). The technicians, together withsome outstanding graduates of FFS, were trained on sweetpotato ICM conductedby PhilRootcrops. They eventuallyconducted and facilitated FFS,thereby building capacities ofmore farmers to produce anduse CPM.

The farmers’ capacity toproduce clean sweetpotatoplanting materials wasdeveloped through the FFS.From 2000 to 2002, 13 fieldFFSs were conducted to teachfarmers CPM production andICM for sweetpotato.


Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration in Community-Based Planting MaterialsProduction for Sweetpotato: A Case from Central Luzon, Philippines

Although, community-based sweetpotato planting material production was initiated in1997, it was only in 1998 that attempts to establish a specialized production anddistribution system for CPM were seriously considered. In effect, this has boosted therapid multiplication of clean planting materials.

The advantage of using CPM produced by farmers over farmers' own cuttings wasdemonstrated in a field experiment in Tarlac that used CPM cuttings from FFSexperiments in Bataan. Yield increase ranged from 12% to 144%. It was observed thatthird generation CPM's performance was similar to the performance of farmers' CPM.

As an outcome of various interventions, sweetpotato farmers became enthusiastic intrying to multiply and maintain their own supply of CPM. Most of them were FFSgraduates. They multiplied CPM either for their own supply or to be sold to other farmersfor production. Local governments supported building net houses while someenterprising farmers built improvised net houses and established multiplication fields tosuit their resources and needs.

CPM Production and Utilization

Aside from Tarlac College of Agriculture (TCA), clean planting materials are now suppliedby farmers from the towns of Sta. Ignacia, and Bamban, Tarlac and Bagac andBalanga in Bataan. Farmers at Sta. Ignacia established a cooperative composing of 31farmers who are involved in CPM production. The target was to produce CPM enoughto supply the needs of sweetpotato farms in Gerona, Moncada and Paniqui. Theybought mother plants and single node cuttings from TCA at P6.00 and P 0.50respectively. Single node cuttings from mother plants are multiplied in net houses and re-multiplied for another three cycles in multiplication farms before being sold.

The use of CPM has significantly increased yield and reduced the level of viral infection.This has raised a demand from commercial sweetpotato farmers for clean plantingmaterials.

Although a number of components are already in place, the currentCPM production and distribution systems is not yet effective andefficient enough to address the CPM supply and demanddynamics in the region. The CPM requirement of 125farmer-members of the Sapang MultipurposeCooperative in Moncada is not even adequatelysupplied. The cooperative still has to buy non-CPMcuttings from farms in Bataan, Pangasinan and Tarlacevery planting season to meet about 25% of its members'planting materials requirement. The practice now is topropagate CPM in their fields in order to provide them withenough clean cuttings for future plantings.

The local government of Sta. Ignacia is supporting farmergroups financially to venture into CPM production. LGUofficials also facilitated the formulation of aMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) between theplanting materials production cooperative in StaIgnacia and the commercial sweetpotato productioncooperative in Moncada. The Land Bank of thePhilippines also supported the collaboration by revisingthe loan ceiling for sweetpotato production toaccommodate the cost of using clean planting materials.


Emerging Issues and ChallengesAlthough the use of CPM is one of the most effective control measures forsweetpotato viruses, it is still a stop gap measure for virus infection. Thefollowing are the some of the relevant issues and challenges that need to be dealtwith effectively in order to sustain the gains of multi-stakeholders collaborationin dealing with the disease and thus improving productivity of sweetpotato farms.

Access to Clean Planting MaterialsThere is a demand for CPM that cannot be adequately supplied. It is alsounfortunate that farmers trained in CPM (through the FFS) are not sharing CPMproduction technology with other interested producers. Because of the lack oftrained personnel on CPM, some net houses are underutilized. There is a need formore thorough information dissemination of CPM technology. More ToT, FFSand technology demonstrations are necessary. There is also an increasing need fortrained personnel.

Quality of Planting MaterialsQuality of CPM must be maintained throughout the stages of production.Because of the high demand for CPM, unscrupulous planters had taken advantageof this situation. There were reports of dishonest producers of planting materials(non-FFS graduates) who labeled cuttings from unclean sources as CPM. Farmersalso need to be monitored so that they do not use successive generations ofplanting materials.

A systematic process of training and accreditation of CPM producers is necessaryto maintain the quality of CPM and ensure that farmers are using reliable plantingmaterials. This requires strict quality control and monitoring of the producers atdifferent stages of the process. At present, there is no accreditation process forCPM production and participation in the FFS for CPM has become an informalcriterion to be a CPM producer.

Net House InnovationsThe existing net house structures are expensive to construct and difficult tomaintain. A low-cost net house has to be designed and financial support madeavailable for maintenance either from the local government and/or farmercooperatives.

Distribution and MarketingAn efficient and effective production and marketing strategy to optimize CPMproduction should be developed. This requires a consideration of CPMproduction relative to the demand of sweetpotato root producers. Particularly,there is a need to synchronize the time of planting for root production with theavailability of CPM cuttings. The economics of CPM production also has to beadequately studied so that CPM can be made into a viable enterprise.


Contributed by:Carlos S. Basilio, Lilibeth B. Laranangand Irene AdionEmail: [email protected]

Pest ManagementThere is a need to further study the vectors and alternate hosts of camote kulot aswell as the other important pests of sweetpotato in the region like lusok (a bacterialdisease), tanga (weevil), gapang (rough weevil), army worms and leaf folders. It issuggested that pest management studies for multiplication farms be done becauseof specific pest control requirements in this stage of CPM.

The adoption of a flush-out system to lower the incidence of camote kulot alsoneeds more attention. This would require adequate and continuous supply ofCPM, removal of alternate hosts of camote kulot and close monitoring of CPMproducers.

The performance of different generations of CPM in Central Luzon must beevaluated and verified for suitability to local conditions. Studies in other locationshave shown that the third generation of CPM has comparative performance toCPM.

Other Component TechnologiesMore varieties need to be cleaned and distributed to growers. The search forgenotypes that are resistant and tolerant to viral diseases must be sustained.Increasing genetic diversity is a means of stemming the likelihood of pestoutbreak which is always a possibility in a monocropping situation.

With the absence of resistant or tolerant varieties, alternative cultural management(alternate host management especially for weeds) and vector managementtechnology have to be devised for the control of virus diseases.

Concepts and principles of viral management should be incorporated into the FFScurriculum so that the gravity of the problem and the urgency of control measuresmay be effectively disseminated to farmers and extension workers.

ReferencesAdion, I.M. Adapting Participatory Research and Development in Demystifying the Kulot

Phenomenon in Central Luzon. Paper presented during the UPWARD Writeshop onParticipatory Research and Development. November 4-7, 2003. Los Banos, Laguna,Philippines.

Laranang, L.B. and C.S. Basilio. 2002. Strengthening Local Systems for Producing SweetpotatoPlanting Materials. UPWARD Fieldnotes (June and December): 8-11 pp.



R

Networking for Community-BasedNatural Resource Managementand Farmer-Centered Research:A Case from China

esearch in China, like in other countries, has greatly contributed toagricultural and rural development. However, these research efforts were mostlytargeted to better-off regions grouped together in the so-called “relativelydeveloped block”. For example, since the early 1990s, the government hasprioritized research on high yielding, high quality and high efficiency agriculture(known as the “Three Highs”). At the same time, agricultural research oriented tothe poorer and marginalized regions grouped together in the so-called“underdeveloped block” and “poverty block” has been downsized, partly due tobudget constraints, but mostly due to a preferential policy for doing research inthe developed block.

There is concern therefore about the role research can and should play inpromoting agriculture and rural development in the underdeveloped and povertyblocks. However, most of the research institutes and researchers in the country arenot well prepared for such a role. More efforts need to be exerted in promotinginstitutional and methodological changes in the national research system towards afarmer-centered and local community-based approach.

4444444444

Networking for Community-Based Natural Resource Managementand Farmer-Centered Research: A Case from China 105

Obstacles to OvercomeMany of the research achievements have not been applied in practice, and this isthe core problem of agricultural research in China. The actual adoption rate ofresearch outputs is below 30%. The separation of the domain of research fromactual (farmer) needs is the central cause of this problem. The obstacles toovercome are many:

q The roles and perspectives of farmersand farmers’ participation are ignoredbecause science is believed to besuperior to farmers’ (local) knowledge.

q A methodology for adaptive andfarmer-centered technology developmentis lacking, and hence, research does notreflect the complexity and the holistic nature of rural development.

q Technologies generated are not offered as a menu of options, but as blue-print technologies.

q Research institutes pursue ‘the most advanced and most innovative’ to getsupport, ignoring the ‘old’ problems.

q National technology development policies in favor of specific rural areasor social groups (e.g., women farmers) are missing.

q Many technologies are geared to the substitution of labor and require highcapital inputs. These technologies are disadvantageous for poor farmers.

q More and more research results are focusing on marketing, but forsmallholders with few economic or financial resources these are difficult toadopt.

Development Blocks Defined

Relatively developed block. This includes the coastal areas and most of the centralregional sub-urban areas. This block only accounts for 10% of the national territory and30% of the total rural population. In this block, market-orientedagriculture has basically shaped after two decades ofmarket-driven development.

Under-developed block. This mainly includes the centralrural areas and the northeast provinces, as well ascertain parts of the other provinces. This block accountsfor 40% of the national territory and 60% of the total ruralpopulation. In this block, a transition toward marketagriculture has been taking place in the last decade.

Poverty block. This is mainly concentrated in the western and the southwest provinces.This block accounts for 50% of the national territory and 10% of the total rural population.Market-oriented production in this block remains mostly a dream and local people are stillpracticing subsistence farming. There are large numbers of very poor people living here.


q With the preferential policies, the new technologies can be more easilyadopted by the ‘advanced farmers’ in a community and they will be withlower marginal benefits when other people adopt it at last.

q The risks of applying a new technology are higher for the smallholders andpoor households than that for large scale farms or richer farmers, so thesmallholders are cautious when applying new technologies.

The Farmer-Centered/Community-Based Natural Resource Management(CBNRM) Network

The Farmer-Centered/CBNRM Research Network (FCRNC) is an informal academicgroup consisting of universities, research institutes, technical development departmentsand individuals. They have joined forces to practice and promote participatoryresearch and participatory research management. The Network was formallyestablished in July 2000, initially supported by the International Center for TropicalAgriculture. The Network is coordinated by the College of Humanities and Development,China Agricultural University. Currently, the International Development Research Center(IDRC) supports the Network financially. IDRC and the Ford Foundation also providetechnical support.

The Network aims to:

q introduce, practice and adapt FCR/CBNRM research methods and techniquesq improve the participatory research and research management capacities of

researchers and research institutesq inform and influence agricultural and rural development policies

Members of the Network:

q Shannxi Institute for Losses Plateau Controlq Ningxia Center for Poverty Alleviation and Environmental Rehabilitationq Institute of Plant Nutrient and Analysis, Inner-Mongolia Academy of Agricultural

Sciencesq Agricultural Resources Comprehensive Survey Institute, Shanxi Academy of

Agricultural Scienceq Institute of Tropical Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Research, China Academy of

Tropical Agricultural Sciencesq The Integrated Rural Development Center, Guizhou Academy of Agricultural

Sciencesq Guangxi Subtropical Crops Research Instituteq Key Laboratory of Sustainable

Development, Southwest AgriculturalUniversity

q Rice Graduate School, Jilin AgriculturalUniversity

q Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy,China Academy of Sciences

q Institute of Agricultural EconomyResearch, Xinjiang Academy ofAgricultural Sciences Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy, TsinghuaUniversity

q Center for Biodiversity and Indigenous Knowledge, Kunmingq College of Humanities and Development, China Agricultural University

Other institutes have also shown their interests to participate in the networking. Theseinclude the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Poverty Alleviation ProjectManagement Office in Inner Mongolia, the Bureau of Sciences and Technology inWuan City, Hebei Province, and the Center for Environment, Development andPoverty Alleviation (CEDPA), Huoshan County, Anhui Province.


Achievements and LearningsBased on the first three years of networking experience,network researchers have gained a basic understanding of afarmer-centered approach through the execution of smallfield research projects (funded by the Network), incombination with ongoing training and regular exchanges.This has opened our eyes to recognize farmers’ knowledgeand skills and accept them as capable partners in research. Inthe Chinese context, this is a big jump from pure laboratoryand on-station experiments to working in the field andaddressing concrete local needs and realities. We have strengthenedour skills in participatory technology development (PTD) and participatorymonitoring and evaluation (PM&E). At the same time, researchers have improvedtheir basic skills in research proposal and research progress report writing.

Through workshops, cross-visits, the web-site forum (“Virtual Resource Center”)and training courses, researchers are becoming more interactive communicators.They have the chance to practice the roles of moderator and facilitator. Most ofthe researchers are also changing from individual work to team work and movingto collaboration with other researchers and non-researchers alike.

Teams are gaining skills in inter-disciplinary and gender sensitive research.Researchers with backgrounds in agronomy, environmental science, forestry, animalhusbandry, economics and sociology, are discussing and working togetheralthough there are still more natural scientists than social scientists. The teams arelearning about other organizations’ research work. They are also learning aboutnetworking and the functions of coordination and support as part of networking.

ChallengesProgress has been made, but many challenges remain. Some of these are thefollowing:

Strengthening Research and Research Management CapacitiesResearch so far has focused on participatory technology development in diverselocal settings. However, many of the problems that small farmers are facing do notjust concern technologies. The problems they face are about the access to andmanagement of common pool resources such as water areas and wells, forests andgrazing lands. Or they are about the trans-boundary effects of resourcemanagement at the farm level, such as soil erosion, and the occurrence of pestsand diseases. This has led to the recognition that a better understanding ofcommunity-based natural resource management is needed, both theory andpractice. This includes issues such as how to deal with stakeholders’ conflicts,policy bottlenecks, and participation obstacles. Some researchers have made a startwith new ways of communicating with local policymakers and executive agenciesabout policy development and implementation, but more appropriate methods andincentives to inform and influence policy making with bottom-up research resultsare required.


NetworkingNetworking requires sharing of responsibilities for functions such ascoordination, providing support, and the organization of activities and events.The Network has made good progress in combining these functions and to carrythem out efficiently. This has contributed to the building of a collaborative spiritand a shared identity: members are proud of being a member of the Network andsome have started to advertise it through the media.

However, since the network partners are institutes that consist of staff memberswith different tasks, qualifications and experiences, meeting the different needs ofmembers, such as project leaders and field workers, is a challenge. There are alsodifferences of interests among network partners coming from the variousprovinces and regions. In addition, some partners have accumulated a longer timeexperience of implementing on-farm experiments with an interdisciplinaryresearch team, while others, operating mostly as natural scientists, have onlyemerging knowledge about participation. There is a need therefore to find a goodbalance between those (more) interested in on-farm, participatory research andthose (more) interested in CBNRM-focused themes.

A good governance structure is another feature of effective networking. So far, theManagement Committee of the Network has been operating with somedifficulties. This has led the Secretariat to take on the responsibilities ofmanagement, coordination, and support. This should be redressed and theManagement Committee should take on more of a management role.

Influencing PoliciesIn order to contribute to the reform of theformal research system in China, there isstill a long way to go. Expanding thepractice of networking to a larger area, toother organizations and to moredisciplines is one way to more forward.How to strengthen the mechanisms ofnetworking? How to learn from eachother? And how to learn from “outsiders”?remain some of the key questions toanswer. The concrete challenges faced bythe researchers are time constraints andnetwork management skills. Time conflictsare about how to balance networkcommunications and fieldwork activities. Management skills include mobilization,organization, facilitation and dissemination.

Influencing EducationNetwork partners are based in academies and universities and most of them aredoing both research and teaching work. This has the advantage to expand farmer-centered research (FCR)/CBNRM concepts and methods to a larger audienceincluding researchers, staff and students. For example, there are two PhD

The attitudes of some institutes and localgovernments have been changed tosome extent. Participatory approacheshave been accepted by someorganizations that previously were mostlypaying attention to conventional researchmethods. These same organizations havealso become more open to a “horizontal”approach to networking. For example, theNingxia research group persuaded localpolicymakers to apply participatorymethods in practice rather than just talkingabout participation. The Inner Mongolianresearch group provided guidance andcomments to the local government in theapplication of participatory villagedevelopment planning.


candidates in COHD who are cooperating and doing research with members,focusing on participatory research (PR)/CBNRM. Some courses have introducedthe experiences as cases through lectures and group discussion (e.g., Introductionof Development for undergraduates in College of Humanities and Development(COHD), Planning of Community Development for undergraduates in JilinAgricultural University).

The challenge is to mainstream FCR/CBNRM and to develop appropriateperformance evaluation systems (at the undergraduate and graduate levels) fordoing this kind of research. Another challenge is to develop new courses andmaterials about FCR/CBNRM in Mandarin and English and to integrate in thesematerials the experiences from those who have a longer experience in trying toinfluence policies such as the research group from Guizhou and the Center forChinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP). Developing appropriate training courses forprofessionals and policymakers is also important.

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E)The Network has embraced PM&E as a crucial component of its activities. Theaims of integrating PM&E are to improve the understanding and application ofthe concepts and methods of FCR/CBNRM; to strengthen ongoing researchactivities of network members; and to deepen the learning by doing of researcherand other stakeholders; and finally, to strengthen the training skills of selectedPM&E trainers.

An iterative training process is used instead of one off-training courses. Twotraining workshops with interactive tools and accompanying fieldwork and twoexchange visits in selected project areas have been accomplished so far. The firstworkshop was held in Xi’an in April 2003, with 28 participants from 12 instituteswho got to understand PM&E concepts and key issues and came up with actionplans. PM&E implementation has been done according to those action plans.Follow-up cross visits were in the research sites of Yanchi County in Ningxia HuiAutonomous Region and in Nanhua County in Yunnan Province, which wereorganized by groups operating in the north and south respectively. A review andreflection workshop was held in January 2004 in Hainan Province, to exchange andconsolidate the results and experiences.

Network members are still in the process of understanding PM&E. There is someconfusion about the reasons behind PM&E, about indicators, and different typesof M&E in different phases or situations, and about how to address gender issues.Learning through fieldwork and reflection will continue.

Next Networking StepsThe Network is now entering a second phase. The aim is to build on the resultsand activities of the first phase, with a continued focus on enhancing the capacitybuilding process and increased attention to influencing policymakers. Researchsmall grants, workshops, cross-visits, training courses, national conferences andother dissemination activities will remain the core activities of the network. In the


coming two years, the capacity of the research institutes will be improved throughongoing fieldwork and targeted training. Subsequent efforts will focus more onscaling up and scaling out, advocacy and dissemination of the FCR/CBNRMmethodology and results. These are the expected results:

q Network members, in close collaboration with farmers and otherstakeholders, sustain a farmer-responsive research-based, participatorynetworking process.

q Network members have increased knowledge of and skills in participatoryresearch, CBNRM concepts and methods, rural development policyanalysis and policy influence.

q Students, extension agents, development workers and policymakers arefamiliar with farmer-centered, participatory research, and CBNRMconcepts and methods and apply them in their rural development research,development and policy making work.

q Rural development policymakers and rural development researchpolicymakers have integrated research achievements in at least two policyfields at the national or provincial level.

Contributed by:Qi Gubo, Li Xiaoyun, Zuo Tingand Ronnie VernooyEmail: [email protected]: http://www.cau.edu.cn/cohd/ department/farmerWebsite: http://www.cbnrmasia.org


http://www.cau.edu.cn/cohd/department/farmer

http://www.cau.edu.cn/cohd/department/farmer

http://www.cbnrmasia.org

111Facilitating Networks to Support Community-Based NaturalResource Management Processes in Cambodia

Facilitating Networks to SupportCommunity-Based NaturalResource ManagementProcesses in Cambodia

C reating partnerships is a key strategy in facilitating Community-BasedNatural Resource Management (CBNRM). Unless adequate networkingmechanisms and facilitation support are built into CBNRM processes, communitymanagement plans and maps alone will do little to enhance local situations orengage critical provincial and national actors.

This paper examines the role that one project team,Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources(PMMR), has taken in creating relationships tosupport CBNRM. Relationships, in this case, occurat various scales (international, national, provincialand community) and take place in various forms,i.e., through partnerships, through networks, and through facilitation by thePMMR project team (referred to as PMMR in this paper). A field experiencerelating to illegal mangrove cutting highlights the role of such relationships.

PMMR and Creating Partnerships

PMMR, funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC), is a researchteam composed of government staff, at the national and provincial levels, from varioustechnical departments. PMMR’s main focus is to research how local-level resourcemanagement institutions can engage in resource management and how locallivelihoods can be enhanced. The team has worked to establish good relationships andcooperation with all governmental levels: the PMMR team facilitates between thenational level government and local people. In the capacity building of provincial andlocal authorities, the PMMR team has held many training courses and sent provincialand local leaders to participate in training courses on mangrove forest management inThailand and local villagers on study tours to other areas in Cambodia working oncommunity-based resource management.

Adapted from a chapterforthcoming in:Tyler, S. (ed). Community-BasedNatural Resource Management:Action Research and PolicyChange in Asia. Ottawa: IDRCBooks, forthcoming 2005.

4545454545


PMMR creates partnerships by working at multiple scales (Table 1). In adapting anaction research approach, much of PMMR’s learning comes from working directlywith villages on resource management issues, and in networking with partners tohelp them to better understand CBNRM processes. We argue that much of thesuccess of PMMR is due to this explicit orientation to learning versusimplementing blueprint plans.

International and Regional PartnershipsThe PMMR team began working together in late 1997, a time where few donorswere supporting CBNRM processes and little was understood (at provincial,national and international levels) about village-level resource managementpractices. Much of the initial emphasis of earlierprojects was community forestry,and PMMR did not quite fit intothis dialogue, given that theteam was working inmangrove fishingcommunities with many in-migrants! Initially, therefore, anational-internationaldialogue was critical asnational level staff learnedCBNRM concepts andinternational stafffamiliarized themselves withthe Cambodian context.

Table 1. Why PMMR Builds Partnerships at Different Levels

International For technical (regional and international) and financial support (forPMMR, for community projects), i.e., for PMMR to learn with others doingcommunity-based management and to secure funding for suchactivities.

National

Partnership

Provincial

Commune

Why PMMR Builds Partnerships at Different Levels

To influence key decision-makers and technical institutions to understandconcepts of CBNRM; and to have this understanding influence thepolicy debate, i.e., influence community fisheries or protected areasmanagement.

To build capacity of provincial departments to facilitate a processwhereby they can support community-based management initiatives,i.e., technical staff work with villagers.

To work with commune-level officials and the police to understand theimportance of community-based management, and to get theirendorsement of this work, i.e., commune chiefs can help to solveconflicts, police can join in village-level patrolling activities.

Village To support village-level resource management institutions and to workwith government partners to help them with their work, i.e., for villagersto feel confident in doing their work and to know that they have supportat commune and other levels for their activities.


Networking with other IDRC partners was an important first step in PMMRlearning about what community-based management may look like, and for learningparticipatory, analytical and other skills related to researching resource managementissues.

Project advisors, visiting from Canada or living in Cambodia, have held multipleroles with the PMMR team: friend, facilitator, trainer, questioner and skeptic.Essential to this national–international dialogue, from PMMR’s perspective, wasthat there was someone that questions could be asked to, or issues reflected with,as CBNRM work unfolded. Although initially, advisors played a critical role inhelping to shape the project, with time, this shifted into PMMR taking the leadposition. The role of project advisors evolved over time and is now seen tochallenge, in a supportive context, the PMMR team members and to help themreflect and learn more from their experiences.

National and Provincial PartnershipsOne direct benefit from extensive networking (meetings, study tours, field visits,workshops, drinking sessions) with different institutions is strong support fromnational and provincial government institutions for PMMR’s CBNRM work. Forinstance, higher officials are willing to give their support to village-level resourcemanagement activities, even though there is no legal framework to mandate suchthings. That is, each local-level resource management institution, known as avillage management committee (VMC) has created a management plan, whichincludes rules and regulations along with an area to manage. These plans arerecognized by appropriate technical institutions and by the Provincial Governor.Also, those villages within the Peam Krasaop Wildlife Sanctuary (PKWS) areendorsed by the Minister of Environment (MoE). When dealing with resourceissues, it helps the VMCs to know that they have support for their work, i.e.,whether to stop illegal activities or to try different village-level initiatives.

PMMR has spent a significant influence within the MoE and within Koh Kongprovince to enhance these decision-makers’understanding of CBNRM concepts. Inthe two phases of the project (1997-2004), PMMR organized a seriesof workshops and strategic fieldvisits with national and provincialgovernment officers whosemandate is to develop coastalresources and local livelihoods.This strategy, which involvedconsistently bringing keydecision-makers to the fieldand facilitating an exchangebetween villagers andgovernment officials, is outlinedin Table 2.


Initially, PMMR supported villagers to plant mangroves in exchange for rice. Afterseveral years, the Provincial Governor began supporting this activity himself. Itappears that support for mangrove replanting continues to grow. In 2004, aNational Assembly member has pledged his support for the communities toreplant mangroves in exchange for rice. As Sok Net commented, “Did you hearthat Tia Bun (a National Assembly Member) will support our mangrovereplanting? He will provide 15t of rice for us, and 5t for Koh Kapic(neighboring village). I’m really pleased.” Net, although not a member ofthe VMC, participates annually in mangrove replanting activities. She was pleasedthat a high-ranking official would support her community.

While the indirect spinoffs of enhanced awarenessof community-based managementgenerally benefits villagers, or atleast those involved in the VMC,sometimes the additionalattention can lead to conflictsamong the VMC members orwithin the community. Forexample, the MoE, unknown toPMMR, issued a certificate ofdedication to key villagers workingon community-based management invarious protected areas. The Provincial

Table 2. Creating Relationships with Strategic Government Officials (PMMR, 2002)

1997

1999

Year

2000

2001

Action(s) Facilitated

2002

PMMR Objective(s)

To introduce theMinister andProvincial Governorto mangrove fishingcommunities.

PMMR organized a field visit for the Minister of Environmentand the Provincial Governor to see mangroves and tobetter understand the livelihood situation of severalvillages in PKWS. PMMR project objectives were shared.

To provide a forumto discuss mangroveconservation issues.

PMMR invited representatives from MoE and the ProvincialGovernor of Koh Kong to participate in a CBNRMworkshop, focusing on the perspective of government staff.PMMR also facilitated a field visit to the recently degradedmangrove areas.

To facilitate a fieldvisit with “high”officials to getsupport for CBNRM.

Since it was challenging for the PMMR to get support forCBNRM, another strategy was to get top-down support.Hence, PMMR invited the Minister of Environment and theCanadian Ambassador to visit the project site.

To set up an openforum betweenofficials andvillagers.

This enabled villagers to share their community-basedmanagement issues with high officials, including wheremore support was needed, and to allow for an exchangeof ideas.

To monitor withvillagers theirinvolvement inCBNRM.

The PMMR team and the VMCs organized a field trip formembers of the MoE and the Provincial Governor, to showthe results of the project and to help them understand theneed for their community development.


Director of Environment nominated one VMC member from Koh Sralao, and hewas given this certificate. Other villagers became angry because they felt that theentire committee worked on community-based management and that one personshould not be singled out, unless it was the VMC Chief. The Provincial Directorof Environment never thought to ask PMMR, or the VMC members for thatmatter, and did not consider the internal ramifications of what was seen to be anice gesture. PMMR, therefore, held group sessions with government officialsencouraging them to think about the implications of their actions and with all theVMC members so that people would not have bad feelings around one personbeing singled out but rather feel proud that someone in their village wasrecognized.

Community PartnershipsWhile the PMMR team was welcomed in the villages, since it is composed ofprovincial and national staff, and Khmer culture demands deference to authorities,however, this relationship has changed from one of formality to cooperation.Villagers initially agreed to anything that PMMR suggested, even if they neverplanned to undertake an activity or felt something to not be appropriate. Forexample, villagers agreed to do monthly garbage cleanups but never followedthrough unless PMMR came to the village. After five years of thinking aboutwaste management issues, however, one village has now devised its own wastemanagement system, and is in the process of trying this system out! Over theyears, villagers became more comfortable in expressing their views and inconnecting with the team, at the provincial office or even in Phnom Penh.

Meanwhile, PMMR realized that there was much to learn from villagers, and thateach field visit would bring some new learning or insight into their reality. It tookyears of field visits, trainings, and exchanges and trying out different activities forthe current approach to emerge. PMMR finds itself often acting as an anchor,backstopping potentially sticky situations.


ConclusionField stories, such as negotiating illegal mangrove cutting, help to illustrate why ittakes active facilitation and extensive networking, in this case from PMMR, toensure adequate support is in place for community based management. The Khmersaying “neak mein knong” which literally translates as “person with back” refers tothe idea that someone with greater power is supporting them. Thus, there is a rolefor donors and international consultants to play in these processes, just as there isfor high-level officials. Such backing and political support are a key ingredient forsuccessful community-based management since project counterparts also need toknow their work is supported! Yet, when it comes to actually implementing

Stopping Charcoal Production: Using the Networks

Stopping illegal charcoal production is an ongoing battle for villagers and provincialofficers. In the 1990s, many villagers came to the area to produce charcoal. Mangrovewood burns well, producing a high-quality charcoal. Charcoal was then sold toThailand. This system was complicated, with middlepersons reaping most of the benefitsand poorer persons cutting the mangrove trees and producing the charcoal. Variousgovernment-supported crackdowns began in the mid-1990s, with the most significanthappening in 1999. By this point, it was clear to villagers that producing charcoal wasnot a secure option for them, and most people switched to fishing.

Therefore, when the VMCs in the area began producing their resource managementplans, stopping illegal activities was included, i.e., charcoal production and dynamitefishing. Each community tried to make its plan for coastal resources protection andconservation. Before the establishment of the VMCs, local communities were afraid tostop illegal activities, especially those supported by powerful persons. However, thefollowing situation illustrates the growing confidence of the VMC in its resourcemanagement work.

In May 2002, the VMC in Koh Sralao arrested one boat carrying mangrove logs. This boatdid not have permission to cut trees from the VMC. According to the regulations,mangrove trees may be cut for house construction by villagers only with permission fromthe VMC. However, the boat owner was related to the provincial police commander.So, after the VMC confiscated his logs, he called the provincial police. The provincialpolice called the provincial PMMR which reminded that the Provincial Governor wasthe one who signed the management plans of the VMC, and that the VMC wasstopping illegal activities. PMMR asked the police to work with the VMC to solve thisissue while reminding the VMC that it had the right to solve this conflict. The VMC wasable to negotiate with the boat owner to pay a fine and sign an agreement saying hewould no longer carry out illegal activities in the area. A definite first considering that theboat owner had connections to the provincial police, an organization far more powerfulthan the VMC!

Although the VMC needed the support of PMMR,especially to remind them that they had the rightto stop this activity, it was up to them to negotiatehow to solve this problem. Without the signature ofthe governor, and the facilitation support fromPMMR, it is debatable if this could have worked.There are many issues within CBNRM development,but capacity-building and cooperation amongrelevant stakeholders on coastal resourcesmanagement are key priorities. Sometimes the task ofincluding multiple stakeholders is exhausting but,generally, the support will prove useful over time. Thesuccessful mangrove resources protection in the PKWScomes from strong cooperation and participation among interested stakeholders,directly and indirectly supporting CBNRM.


Contributed by:Kim Nong and Melissa MarschkeEmail: [email protected]: [email protected]

CBNRM on the ground, it takes a team of people committed to problem solvingand working consistently on issues with different partners. Most importantly, ittakes villagers who are willing to take risks and dedicate their time to resourcemanagement activities. PMMR’s experience shows how critical such support or“backing” is at national, provincial and local levels to ensure that CBNRMprocesses can be carried out.

Although many local authorities may have low technical skills regarding naturalresource management, they know their local situation well. Provincial technicaldepartments, on the other hand, are mandated to help local authorities withresource management. The PMMR members come from provincial departments,and tend to have higher skills from their extensive fieldwork than others in theirdepartments. The intention of PMMR, therefore, is to continue building capacityand support for CBNRM, within technical institutions and local authorities, sothat village institutions can be adequately understood and appropriatelysupported. Working with a project that helps to facilitate learning and thinking isan important aspect of CBNRM. Whatwe mean is that trainings onproject planning andimplementation are not socritical. What is critical ishelping people to solvetheir own problems andto think more. This is asubtle difference: we areadvocating for a flexibleapproach that isresponsive rather thanproject document driven.

ReferencesMarschke, M. 2003. From Planning to Action: What can Resources Management Committees Do

“On the Ground”? Cambodia Development Review, (7)3, 7-10, -12.

Marschke, M. and K. Nong. 2003. Adaptive Co-Management: Lessons from Coastal Cambodia.Canadian Journal of Development Studies, (24)3, 369-383.

McKenney, B. and T. Prom. 2002. Natural Resources and Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia: ABaseline Assessment. Working Paper 23. Cambodia Development Resource Institute, PhnomPenh, Cambodia.

PMMR. 2002. Participatory Management of Mangrove Resources (PMMR) Annual ProgressReport for IDRC, July 2001–June 2002. Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.


Scaling Upand

Institutionalization

A Framework for Scaling Up Research onNatural Resource Management 121

roject-oriented development activities can be criticized for being too donor-driven, time-bound, and often too narrowly focused. They do nevertheless serve asa primary tool in terms of moving from ideas into action. We have, therefore,chosen the broad flow of project design to develop a framework for scaling upstrategy which systematizes the strategic elements.

Before we go into detail on the strategicelements we would like to note thefollowing points.

q In support of similar observationsmade elsewhere, creating an impactfrom research results has focused heavily on the 'post-project' ordissemination stage. Many of the key strategies which have been identifiedas prerequisites for successful scaling up need to be addressed moreextensively in the pre-project and implementation phases.

q Project design is an iterative process, within a wider sphere of programsand policies. A project can be seen as one learning event in itself and, evenif failing, can contribute to improving scaling up through theidentification of weaknesses.

q The strategies and framework proposed are not prescriptive and have to beseen as a guide only. The fairly limited number of successful scaling upresearch cases show no absolute strategies or prioritization of elements.

A Framework for Scaling UpResearch on Natural ResourceManagement

P

Adapted from:Guendel, S., J. Hancock and S. Anderson.2001. Scaling Up Strategies for Research inNatural Resources Management: AComparative Review. Chatham, UK:Natural Resources Institute.

4646464646


Figure 1 shows the proposed framework for guiding scaling up of natural resourcemanagement (NRM) research. It links chronologically key elements whichstrengthen the likelihood of successful scaling-up. In general, we advocate thatscaling up be considered during the early stages of planning research activities.Table 1 gives a breakdown of key activities at each project stage and provides a setof attributes to be achieved (or aspired to) in the scaling up process.

The strategic elements, while essentially recommended at the pre-projectpreparation phase, also have a bearing throughout the project and program phases.The elements can be used at different entry points in a research implementationprocess: reviewing ongoing work, as well as assessing finished research projectswith existing potentially useful outputs. The framework may also serve asadditional material in evaluations of research programs.

Many of the elements have parallels with any good project design, but areparticularly important to emphasize here, as in the past, much of the researchproject was focused on traditional research outputs.

Figure 1 gives an idea of how the different elements, discussed in more detailbelow, are important for several, if not all, the project phases.

q Engaging in policy dialogue on pro-poor development agendas.Research needs to be placed in the context of local, regional and nationaldevelopment agendas, as this helps identify key entry points and majorneeds. This is ideally done at an early stage so as to shape the overallproject design, but can also be done through regular reviews of the project,or raising awareness of results of projects at other developmentdiscussion meetings. Engaging in dialogue on local development issuesalso helps to identify the extent, and importance in potential target groups.

q Carrying out situational analysis to identify community,institutional and environmental enabling and constrainingfactors to scaling up. The likelihood of scaling up will be increased ifkey constraints as well as opportunities are identified at an early stage.However, all enabling and constraining factors cannot be identified at theoutset and so the research activities (project) will need to build inmechanisms to review new issues and plan around them or with them.This is a crucial phase for addressing the real priorities of the target group,as well as for identifying catalysts for scaling up.

q Identifying appropriate research objectives and outputs withindevelopment processes to ensure widespread uptake. Rather thanidentifying outputs and forms of dissemination only at the end ofresearch, these should be discussed at an early stage together withstakeholders and users, and subsequently modified throughout the project.These outputs may include identification of solutions which can be verytechnical in nature.


Situationanalysis

Identifyingtarget groups’objectives and

outputs

Fundingmechanisms

Developingmonitoring and

evaluationsystems

Collaboration

Exitstrategy

Disse-mination

Project Phases Pre-Project Implementation Post-Project

Figure 1. Key Strategies for Scaling Up NRM Research in Relation to Design Process

Legend:indication of importance ofstrategic elements/phases

Key Strategic Elements

1. Engaging in policy dialogue onpro-poor developmentagendas

2. Carrying out a situationalanalysis to identify community,institutional andenvironmental enabling andconstraining factors to scalingu p

3. Identifying appropriateresearch objectives andoutputs within developmentprocesses to ensurewidespread uptake

4. Identifying indicators andplanning, monitoring andevaluation methods tomeasure impact and processof scaling up

5. Building networks andpartnerships to increase localownership and pathways toscaling up

6. Building capacity andinstitutional systems to sustainand replicate

7. Developing appropriatefunding mechanisms to sustaincapacity for expansion andreplication


Table 1. Activities, Strategic Elements and Attributes of Scaling Up Processes for NRMResearch

ProjectPhases

Pre-Project

Implementation

Post-Project

Activities Relevantto Scaling Up

Situation analysis

Identifying targetgroups

Settingobjectives andoutputs

Developingmonitoring andevaluationsystem

Collaboration

Fundingmechanisms

Capacity-building andinstitutionalizing

Partnershipforging andnetworking

Raisingawareness

Policy dialogue

Monitoring andevaluation andsupport studies

Dissemination

Impactassessment

Strategic Elements Towards SuccessfulScaling Up

Engaging in policy dialogue on pro-poordevelopment agendas

Identify community, institutional andenvironmental enabling and constrainingfactors to scaling up

Appraisal of institutional capacity ofagencies involved in scaling up required

Identifying appropriate research objectivesand outputs within development processesto ensure widespread uptake

Identify indicators and planning, monitoringand evaluation methods to measureimpact and process of scaling up

Building networks and partnerships toincrease local ownership and pathways

Develop appropriate funding mechanismsto sustain capacity for expansion andreplication

Building capacity and institutional systemsto sustain and replicate

Other resource organizations contributewith products and by building technicalcapacity

Multi-media dissemination of findings

Aggregate and assess findings fromindividual projects and derive policy-relevant information

Central to scaling up processes in providingevidence to influence policymakers, indeciding what should be scaled up andhow this might be achieved

Concerted action required on a regionallevel

Should involve the target group asdisseminators

Built upon monitoring and evaluation.Representatives of target group part ofassessment team. Technological andlivelihoods assessment required

Attributes

Inclusiveand plural

Recognizedifferentiation

ConsultativeCollegiate

Participatory

Constructivist

Innovatory

VerticalsharingStart early

CollegiateInclusive

Pro-active

ParticipatoryPlural

Concerned

Accessible

Participatory

Exit strategy


q Identifying indicators and planning, monitoring and evaluationmethods to measure impact and process of scaling up. Central tothe scaling up processes is deciding what should be scaled up and how thismight be achieved, and providing validated evidence to influencepolicymakers. To manage, learn from and gain credibility, methods andmeasures for assessing pro-poor and NRM impact on different scales needto be elaborated. The intermediate supporting processes and institutionalsystems to achieve this will also need agreed measures and reviewmechanisms. Various participatory methods are vital to ensure openfeedback. A major area of this work is identifying cost-effectiveness, so asto be able to work towards it.

q Building networks and partnerships to increase local ownershipand pathways to scaling up. In order to achieve the above elements,researchers and their institutions need to develop relationshipsthroughout the process which can further develop into firmpartnerships with development and other institutions, there alwaysbeing a firm link to the grassroots and end-users. Personal relationshipsalso foster direct interest and enthusiasm, increasing the chances ofinstitutionalization and spread of ideas.

q Building capacity and institutional systems to sustain andreplicate. The capacity to manage learning through doing is critical forscaling up to evolve and for further opportunities for scaling up to becontinually identified. It is also important, especially in theimplementation and exit stages, to take on board new ideas withininstitutions, especially within communities and government.

q Developing appropriate funding mechanisms to sustain capacityfor expansion and replication. Maintain flexibility and ensure fundingfor non-technical activities (local and regional networking, capacity-building, consultations) is in place at the pre-project stage. At the sametime one has to begin building ownership through clear shared resourcecommitments to activities. Seek opportunities for self-sustaining resultsin research outcomes, or at least mechanisms for reducing costs whenexpanding, replicating, etc. Take into account the very real dynamicsbetween technologies and wider economic spheres, and the financialconstraints facing local and government institutions.

ReferenceGuendel, S., J. Hancock and S. Anderson. 2001. Scaling Up Strategies for Research in Natural

Resources Management: A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Contributed by:Sabine Guendel, Jim Hancockand Simon AndersonEmail: [email protected]



Contending Cultures AmongDevelopment Actors

I n participatory research and development, culture, organizational and personalbehaviors, power and politics, all coalesce.

Lewis et al (2003) establish a cogent argumentwhich suggests that serious analysis of theculture of aid organizations, and of therelationships with other actors, matters,and that it is a neglected area of analysis.Their discussion raises important new questionsabout the development enterprise from an internalperspective that heretofore has been neglected orignored. Contrasting the article by Lewis et al.with a book by Harrison and Huntington (2000)reinforces that conviction. Throughout the Harrison and Huntington book--whose authors provide an excellent overview of the history of the study ofculture as something that certainly does ‘matter’ in development--we kept sayingto ourselves that ‘All this is fine, but it is focussed (as is much of the ancillaryliterature on ‘culture’ in development) on lookingoutward, at others undergoing development,without consideration of the development agencyactors themselves. It mostly addresses questions andissues concerning the question: Why some politicaland national systems succeed and others fail.

“Anthropology holds up agreat mirror to man and letshim look at himself in his infinitevariety.”

Clyde Kluckhohn, 1944

This paper is based on apresentation by the authors at theworkshop ‘Order and Disjuncture:The Organization of Aid andDevelopment’ held on 26-27September 2003 at the School ofOriental and African Studies(SOAS), University of London. Thefull paper can be viewed withother workshop papers at:www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=459.

4747474747

www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=459


127Contending Cultures AmongDevelopment Actors

What is missing in the bulk of the literature, we said to ourselves, is turning thelens around look inward at what Lewis et al (2003), Eyben (2003b) and others callthe ‘black box’ at the heart of the donor agencies, government bureaucracies, thedevelopment firms, the non-government organizations (NGOs), and thedevelopment contractors and consultants.

What is missing is examiningthe world views (cultures) of theagencies, organizations andpersonalities that are mandatedwith ‘doing’ internationalresearch and development aidplanning and implementation. Inshort, we need now to look atour own institutions, thosedoing ‘development’, withassisting other cultures, ornations, to succeed, progress anddevelop. We who work indevelopment need to examinemore critically our institutionsand organizations, and our ownbehaviors, reflexively and introspectively.

To some extent the top has now been taken off the Pandora’s box of aid agencyand development research institution cultures (‘cultures’ plural: there is no singlemode), and it is unlikely to be ever put back on again. We are, indeed, beginning tolook inward, at the cultures of our own organizations (speaking as individualswho have worked a lifetime for various development aid agencies, contract firms,research centers and NGOs).

In the past and still continuing in the present, for example, it was common topursue research and development from an aid agency and institution-centric pointsof view, performing and perfecting practices ostensibly ‘for them’, the‘beneficiaries’ of aid, in terms of new problem-solving technologies such as the‘Green Revolution’ and pursuing and promoting such contemporary aid conceptsas ‘empowerment’, ‘transparency’, ‘poverty reduction’, ‘participation’, ‘socialinclusion’ and the like. That approach puts value upon coming up with ‘new andbetter’ methods of development from our point of view looking outward, of‘getting it right’ with new and better constructs for others to adapt, without fullyappreciating the origins, implementation and expressions of those approaches aspart of our cultural baggage. That structural model, in short, stresses ways ofdoing things to and for the under-developed, with comparatively less examinationof the ways in which we (the developed ‘experts’) can work with ‘the beneficiaries’to facilitate already established and evolving innovation systems of their own. Weneed now to look inward to examine the impacts of our own internally establishedworld views, cultures and personal behaviors as the outside agents of aid.

There is a growing literature concerning whatgoes on ‘inside’ those cultures, the ‘blackboxes’ of development, their organizationalbehaviors, their ways of knowing and doingdevelopment, their various developmentprograms and projects (Earl, Carden andSmutylo, 2001; Grimble and Wellard, 1997;Richards, Davies and Yaron, 2003; Biggs andMatsaert 2003; Watkins and Mohr, 2001;Hammond and Royal, 1998; Biggs andSmith, 2003). The most useful of this latterliterature is that which is based on, andhas learnt from the earlier types of inquiry.The fact that this sensible and commonsense approach does not necessarilyoccur in practice, is another reason forour suggesting that we have to lookmore closely and critically inside theblack boxes of development agencies.


Hereafter, by the mere recognition of the internal issues arising, we find ourselveson the cusp of a new and changing paradigm, one that is being led by serious andin-depth anthropological thinking. For many development practitioners, academicsand researchers the transition is, or will be (as they get on with it), difficult. This isbecause we are often trained in cultures of codification, problem-solving andscientific methodology that do not allow much space (if any) for anthropologicalconcepts and qualitative measures or analysis. On other occasions we havecolluded by suggesting ‘ideal’ and ‘visionary’ ways forward, with littleconsideration of cultural and methodological issues, whether about ourselves orabout those with (or for) whom we work.

There are strong pressures for some of the new insights and their implications fordevelopment practice to be co-opted and appropriated by members of the oldparadigm (such as stuffing ‘participation’ rhetoric into the traditional pipelines of aid).However, we feel this is unlikely to happen this time round, partly as it is membersof the anthropology profession who are now taking us into these new areas, bothin practice (working within the donor agencies and organizations of development)and in the process of developing new theories and practical applications. These arenot ‘new professionals’ working in special projects; rather, these are long-termprofessionals working within their discipline, bringing about change from withinboth the discipline and the development organizations in which they work.Ultimately, these internal revelations will (we hope) serve to help not only toimprove our practice, but also help reduce poverty and social exclusion in its manyforms in the places in which we work.

Framework for Analysis

Culture as a cognitive construct is defined as knowledge that people create, learn,own, share and use to interpret experience and generate behavior (adapted fromSpradley and McCurdy, 1980). Knowledge, or what one ‘knows’ by belonging to aparticular culture or sub-culture (could be a development project, a research center,etc.), embodies sets of values, attitudes, beliefs, orientations and underlyingassumptions prevalent among people identified as belonging to a particular socialentity. Culture creates the accepted ‘rules’ by which we each interpret what weexperience and guide our individual and group responses and behaviors.

The key components of organizational behavior (derived from Lewis et al., 2003, afterHawkins, 1997) are the artefacts (e.g., dress code), personal behavior (how conflict isresolved and mistakes are treated), mindset and emotional ground (values andassumptions that inform and constrain behavior, perception and emotions), andmotivational roots (underlying sense of purpose that link--or disparage--the values ofthe organization and the individuals involved). These components are all grounded incultural cognition and personal action.

The pipeline model of development suggests a ‘top-down’, linear,problem-solving process in which knowledge is produced by‘experts’ such as an agency superior, a scientist or other‘knowledgeable person’ etc., on the upper end of the ‘pipeline’,for ‘beneficiaries’ such as local development agents, policymakers,advisors, farmers, and researchers lower down the line at thereceiving end. It is culture acted out in linear fashion, under whichthere is no recognition of knowledge being produced within thecontext of social interaction between various actors. Such aconception of knowledge with its subsequent organizational structure perpetuates aculture that tends to view users as passive beneficiaries with little or no agency ascribedto them, and who are expected to unquestioningly follow the rules and perform as theyare expected by those in control. At this end of the process, there is often a stage calledevaluation, to see how well users/beneficiaries have ‘adopted’ the new knowledge.


Scientist Culture in Development Research: The Hardand the Soft of ItTwo of the major policy objectives of aninternational group of scientific research centersare to ensure responsiveness to the needs ofstakeholders and to remain pro-poor. Specificgoals include focusing on poverty reduction,keeping research focused on major problems ofglobal significance, and to ensure that research isdemand-driven. Recent studies of success inliving up to these goals describe how the cultureof an organization defines and produces engagement between researchers andfarmers, as a process. It also tells a great deal about the engagement betweentraditional technological researchers and social scientists promoting a moreparticipatory research agenda. A closer examination of these relationships providesan important window of understanding on how such a relationship comes to beproduced and maintained, or not, within a research center. The values, beliefs, attitudesand practices of the organization are an important element of the engagement process betweenresearchers (organizational members, both technologists and social scientists) and their clients (poorfarmers and other poor rural people in the developing world).

Within the last decade, the value of participatory research has become recognizedas an important methodology to ensure that research is adaptive to the needs ofthe rural poor. Where there is support for the adoption of participatory socialscience approaches from donors, there tends to be good support and acceptancefor such ‘soft’ methodologies by bio-physical scientists. Nonetheless, we must askhow the ‘pro-poor’ policy rhetoric and acceptance of ‘soft’ participatoryapproaches by bio-physical scientists plays out in an actual process of engagementwith different staff of an organization. And, how has the participatory discoursebecome appropriated into a scientific and technological paradigm within anorganization. This process is achieved as much by bio-physical scientists usingparticipatory approaches for a functional end (efficiency in producing adoptabletechnologies) as it is by the compliance and “service role” of social scientistsoperating in the system.

In the past, an important strategy to bridge thegap between the functional and empoweringcategories was through ‘experiential learning’, aprocess in which social scientists working ‘sideby side’ with bio-physical scientists is believedto lead to a process of mutual learning, therebyenhancing the nature and quality of engagementbetween the researchers and their constituents.Looking at it historically, it is interesting to seehow social scientists have proceeded to define a strategy focused on a systemsapproach (and hence necessarily involving a process that includes working withmultiple stakeholder constituents, participatory methodologies and multi-disciplinary teams). The implicit objective of this approach is to demonstrate theviability and effectiveness of social science and the participatory approach to bio-physical colleagues not schooled in it.

This case study is based on:Gurung, B. and H. Menter. 2004.Mainstreaming Gender-SensitiveParticipatory Approaches: TheCIAT Case Study. In: Pachico, D.(ed). Scaling Up and Out:Achieving Widespread ImpactThrough Agricultural Research,Cali, Columbia: CentroInternacional de AgriculturaTropical (CIAT).


Research centers have developed an impressive range ofresearch projects ostensibly scaled up from singlecommodities or crop specializations to the management ofnatural resources, and from purely technocratic approachesto approaches which included participatory modes ofengagement. Despite the apparent achievements in projectdesign, however, there are limitations when they continueto focus on single crops or commodities rather thanwhole ecosystems, and as research results are producedwithout much input from the farmers or reference toother multidisciplinary colleagues. It appearstherefore that researchers mayadopt the terminology andgoals of the changes in theirresearch designs, butcontinue to act in theways most familiar tothem, in the culturalstyles of traditionalresearch. Their style often is toco-opt the language, but not the practice.

It has been found that addressing structural change alone has little chance ofsuccess unless accompanied by a shift in scientific cultures, particularly ifresistance is embedded in the values, beliefs and attitudes of organizationalmembers. Combined with these deeply-held views, the quality of personalrelationships between bio-physical and social scientists (mistrust, power relations,access to donor funds) all play an important role in how views of participatoryresearch and social science in general, are generated and maintained. Subsequently,these influence and determine how participatory approaches are employed in practiceby technology generating scientists.

In an organizational paradigm that is dominated by practitioners of a ‘linear andrational’ science, the process of knowledge production can aptly be described bythe metaphor of a ‘pipeline’. Within such a system, the status and subsequentpractice of social science is fraught with ‘misgivings’, affronts (both to one’spersonal sense of self-esteem and discipline) and a general ‘dumbing down’ to suita functional and instrumental function to spread technologies that will ‘alleviatepoverty’. The relative isolation from end-users or farmers is rooted in the center’sconventional wisdom, one that holds that scientists work most effectively whenthey are protected from ‘political’ pressures and are free to get on with the job ofdeveloping valuable technologies. Underlying this view is the assumption that ‘newtechnology” is the key leading factor in the process of desired social change’(Anderson, Levy and Morrison, 1991). Finally, note the paradox here: that socialanalysis of the generation and diffusion of technology shows that it rarely followsthe pipeline model.


An Appropriation of Cultural LanguageThe old days of seeing the problems and analyzing the cultures of development asbeing ‘out there’ somewhere are over. In the words on one aid agency leader: ‘It isno longer about them as much as it is (now) about us.’ That is, the onus is now‘in here’, in the black box of aid agencies, research organizations and academicresearch institutions, for example, whose goals are to practice internationalresearch and development to alleviate poverty, encourage empowerment, supportsocial inclusion, and the like. Whether language, methods, theories, etc., are co-opted, modified, fussed, or scaled-up, etc., depends on the culture of the project,the organization, or the program. And while co-option will surely continue andgenuine change will likely continue to take place, the old “them-and-us”dichotomy is no longer meaningful as a way to speak and behave as we engage inthe hard work of development. Pandora’s Box is open, and it will be hard to close.Rosalind Eyben’s studies (2003, 2004) and others that are coming into theliterature reflect that at least some international development agencies andgovernment bureaucracies are now showing a propensity to shift the focus ofClyde Kluckhohn’s (1985) ‘great mirror’ to reflect inward, on agency actors andtheir behaviors, to seek the source of some of the internal organizational andcultural incompatibilities that undercut our best efforts at development.

Conclusions: Personal ChoiceThe move towards more transparency, more reflexive attitudes in the workplace,etc., brings us to focus on the importance of the choices we all make about whatworldview and type of personal behaviors we wish to develop, and what types ofworkplace culture we choose to support by our actions.

ReferencesAnderson, R.S., E. Levy and B.M. Morrison. 1991. Rice Science and Development Politics: Research

Strategies and IRRI’s Technologies Confront Asian Diversity, 1950-1980. Oxford, UK:Clarendon Press.

Biggs, S. and H. Matsaert. 2004. Strengthening Poverty Reduction Programmes Using An ActorOriented Approach: Examples from Natural Resources Innovation Systems. AgRENNetwork Paper No. 134. London: Overseas Development Institute (www.odi.org.uk/).

Biggs, S. and S. Smith. 2003. Paradox of Learning in Project Cycle Management and the Role ofOrganizational Culture. World Development Vol. 31, No. 10. pp. 1743-1757.

Earl, S., F. Carden and T. Smutylo. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection IntoDevelopment Programmes. Ottawa: IDRC.

Eyben, R. 2003. Donors as Political Actors: Fighting the Thirty Years War in Bolivia, Brighton,Sussex, UK: Institute for Development Studies.

Eyben, R. 2004. Relationships Matter for Supporting Change in Favour of Poor People. Lessonsfor Change in Policy and Organisations. No. 8. Brighton, UK: Institute of DevelopmentStudies.

www.odi.org.uk/


Grimble, R. and K. Wellard. 1997. Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management:A Review of Principles, Contexts, Experiences and Opportunities. Agricultural Systems,55(2): 173-193.

Gurung, B. and H. Menter. 2004. Mainstreaming Gender-Sensitive Participatory Approaches: TheCIAT Case Study. In: Pachico, D. (ed). Scaling Up and Out: Achieving Widespread ImpactThrough Agricultural Research, Cali, Columbia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical(CIAT).

Hammond, S. A. and C. Royal (eds). 1998. Lessons from the Field: Applying AppreciativeEnquiry. Practical Press, Inc., P.O. Box 260608, Plano TX, USA.

Harrison, L.E. and S.P. Huntington (eds). 2000. Culture Matters: How Values Shape HumanProgress. New York: Basic Books.

Hawkins, P. 1997. Organisational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and Complexity. HumanRelations 50 (4): 417-440.

Kluckhohn, C. 1985 (1949). Mirror for Man: The Relation of Anthropology to Modern Life, 2ndedition. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Lewis, D. et al. 2003. Practice, Power and Meaning: Frameworks for Studying OrganisationalCulture in Multi-Agency Rural Development Projects. Journal of InternationalDevelopment, 15: 541-557.

Mosse, D. 2003. Good Policy is Unimplementable? Reflections on the Ethnography of AidPolicy and Practice. A paper prepared for presentation at the workshop ‘Order andDisjuncture: The Organisation of Aid and Development’, 26-27 September 2003, School ofOriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London (www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid=459).

Richards, M., J. Davies and G. Yaron. 2003. Stakeholder Incentives in Participatory ForestManagement: A Manual for Economic Analysis, London: ITDG Publishing.

Spradley, J.P. and D.W. McCurdy. 1980. Anthropology: The Cultural Perspective, 2nd edition, NewYork: John Wiley and Sons.

Watkins, J. M. and B. J. Mohr. 2001. Appreciative Inquiry, Change at the Speed of Imagination.San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass/Pefeiffer.

Contributed by:Stephen Biggs, Don Messerschmidtand Barun GurungEmail: [email protected];[email protected];[email protected]




133Organizational Implications for MainstreamingParticipatory Research and Gender Analysis

Organizational Implications forMainstreaming ParticipatoryResearch and Gender Analysis

T he effectiveness of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PR&GA)approaches is critically constrained by an organizational structure based on asupply-driven system of innovation. Results of several studies conducted by theProgram with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) centers demonstrates three separate but inter-related constraints:

1) Fragmented investment in and application of PR&GA approaches acrossthe CGIAR system leads to repeated testing of proven approaches and as aresult of which international agricultural research centers (IARCs)do not evolve beyond a researcher-led type of participation.

2) In a researcher-driven participatory research process, the likelihood oftechnologies matching farmers’ priorities is small because end-users, suchas women, tend to be brought into the participatory researchprocess at a relatively late stage, to evaluate technologies that havealready been developed and are ready for dissemination.

3) Even in those cases where innovations have resulted from farmers’feedback, it is unlikely that such learning and change can be sustainedbeyond the life of the project. One major reason for this is that PR&GAapproaches largely remain isolated from, and often contradict thedominant paradigm of innovation practiced withinorganizations.

4848484848


While there is a need for increased focus on capacity development to enhance skillsin conducting PR&GA, such capacity development processes need to be combinedwith transformations in the structure and culture of the organization tocreate an enabling organizational environment for participatory approaches tobecome an integral part of its functioning.

Three Dimensions of the OrganizationThe organizational framework that informs this analysis consists of three separatebut inter-related dimensions.

1) The Technical Dimension is the visible and tangible components ofan organization and can be accessed through printed publications, policystatements, public relation manuals and the like. This is the public face ofthe organization and it consists of three discrete elements: the policy ormandate, the tasks and responsibilities, and the human resourcesor expertise of an organization.

2) The Political Dimension of an organization is less tangible and is alsoreferred to as the socio-political dimension. This dimension representsthose aspects of an organization that are more ‘hidden’ from both publicscrutiny as well as some internal members. The ‘hidden’ nature of thisdimension suggests that it is a more ‘fuzzy’ and subjective arena in whichdecisions are made, policies are formulated, and individual membersnegotiate ‘spaces’ in which to maneuvre and innovate.

3) The Cultural Dimension is the non-tangible aspect of an organization.This represents those often unquestioned but embedded organizationalelements that influence the norms and values underlying the running ofthe organization; the way work relations between staff and outsiders areorganized; and the way members feel and think about their workenvironment and about other members. This dimension is comprised ofthree elements: organizational symbols, cooperation and attitudes.

The System-wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for TechnologyDevelopment and Institutional Innovation (PRGA Program) was established in 1997 withtwo major goals:

q To assess and develop methodologies and organizational innovations for gender-sensitive participatory research approaches (PR&GA).

q To mainstream what is being learned worldwide from the integration of PR&GAapproaches with Plant Breeding (PB), crop and natural resource management(NRM) research.

The PRGA program is aiming to develop a set of ‘best practices’ inmainstreaming PR&GA approaches through organizational change.Three studies were commissioned among centers of the CGIAR togenerate an understanding of the opportunities and constraints formainstreaming such approaches through organizational transformation.The three centers are: the International Center for Tropical Agriculture(CIAT); the International Potato Center (CIP); and the InternationalCenter for Agricultural Research in Dry Land Areas (ICARDA). Learnings inthis paper are from the CIAT study.


Taken together, the three dimensionsand the nine elements are contained ina framework, where they cannot beviewed as separate and distinctaspects of an organization butrather, as an axis of meaning thatruns across and down theelements.

Table 1. Organizational Framework

TechnicalDimension

PoliticalDimension

CulturalDimension

Mission/Mandate Structure Human Resources

I. Policies and Action

The guiding policy andits operationalization inaction plans,strategies, approachesand monitoring andevaluation (M&E)systems.

II. Tasks andResponsibilities

The way people arepositioned and the waytasks and responsibilitiesare allocated to eachother throughprocedures, informationand coordinatingsystems.

III. Expertise

The number of staffand the wayrequirements andconditions to allowthem to work, suchas job description,appraisal, facilities,training, etc.

Source: Groverman and Gurung, 2001 (Adapted from Tichy, 1982)

IV. Policy Influence

The way and extentmanagement, peoplefrom within theorganization andpeople from outsideinfluence policy andrunning of theorganization.

V. Decision-Making

The patterns of formaland informal decision-making processes; theway diversity andconflicts are dealt with.

VI. Room forManeuvre/Innovation

The space providedto staff (throughrewards, careerpossibilities, varietyin working styles) orcreated by staff todefine their work.

VII. OrganizationalCulture

The symbols, rituals,traditions, norms andvalues underlying therunning of theorganization and thebehavior of staff. Also,the economic andsocial standards thatexist.

VII. Cooperation/Learning

The way the workrelations between staffand with outsiders areorganized, such asworking in teams andnetworking as well asthe norms and valuesunderlying thesearrangements.

IX. Attitude

The way staff feeland think abouttheir work, the workenvironment andabout employees.The extent to whichstaff stereotypeother staff – theextent to which astaff memberidentifies with thedominant culture ofthe organization.


Based on a major study at CIAT (2002), the following issues emerged as critical toconducting participatory research.

Technical Dimensionq There should be a specific policy statement at the level of the organization

to ensure that participatory approaches are integrated into the structure ofthe organization.

q If there is not one, funding for the majority of projects that useparticipatory approaches may not come from the core funds of theorganization. Instead, funding is tied to specific project life.

q Formal structural mechanisms are important to ensure that learning andchange that occur as a result of using participatory approaches in projectsextend to the organization.

Political Dimensionq ‘Key’ members within the organization have been instrumental in initiating

an environment in which participatory approaches have become ‘acceptedpractice’, however, the role of donors in influencing practice isinstrumental in sustaining such practices.

q It is important to take advantage of room to innovate within theorganization. Projects use extensive number of participatory approaches,ranging from achieving instrumental or empowering objectives. However,the room to innovate often is closely linked to one’s status or position inthe organizational hierarchy.

q The organization’s incentive system should reward those scientists whouse participatory approaches. Otherwise, this has implications on thequality of participation that is employed.

Cultural Dimensionq Symbols and organizational image

may be clearly ‘pro-poor’ but thereshould also be an explicit statementof methods that would promoteor enhance equity or democraticprocesses in research decision-making.

q Organizations may demonstratebias towards the instrumental useof participatory approaches, while they should place emphasis onempowering participation to “hand over the stick to clients and relinquishtheir position of influence in relation to the poor.”


Looking AheadIn summary, the lessons that emerge from this case study are:

q There is a broad and extensive range of experience in using participatoryapproaches: ranging from the ‘functional’ to ‘empowering’ approaches.

q The use of participatory approaches in projects is dependent on individualresearcher interest and donor influence and as a result, these learnings arelargely isolated to project experience.

q The absence of organizational mechanisms to ensure ‘accountability’ forthe quality of participation being used has the potential to diminish theaccomplishments of individual project learnings achieved.

Participatory Approaches and their Uses: Survey Results

Results of a survey conducted in CIAT (2002) shows that there are approximately 58projects, approximately 34% of the total number of projects, employ some form ofparticipatory research approaches in their work. These participatory approaches are usedin a wide range of cases and their use can be categorized into the following three generalcategories:

1. enhancing extension through participation2. integrating local and scientific knowledge through participation3. enhancing end-user ability to make demands on research systems

Most of the project (26) fall into the first category, using participatory approaches toextend technologies that are developed by researchers. Mechanisms for the participationof end-users range from more conventional on-farm trials and evaluation of technologiesto participatory varietal selection (PVS) and participatory plant breeding (PPB), farmerfield schools and farmer research committees such as CIALs. Though there are somecapacity development initiatives, particularly in PPB, the major objective is the transfer oftechnologies developed largely by researchers to end-users. As a result, there is lessemphasis on developing capacity of end-users to more actively engage in the decision-making or research process.

A smaller number of projects (2) fall into the second category. These are projects thatengage end-users as a source of local knowledge to be adapted and integrated forscientific solutions. The major objective is to compare ‘expert’ knowledge with ‘local’experience to create a mechanism for communication between the two groups. The levelof farmer participation in terms of decision-making varies in these projects. Relatively moreprojects (15) in this category focus on developing the capacity to enhance farmerparticipation, particularly through engagement in the research process as well as throughstrengthening their local institutional capacities to make demands on the research system.

The 16 remaining projects fall in between these three major categoriesin that they exhibit some elements of each category.

The general conclusion that emerges from this analysis is that alarge number of projects use participatory approaches in afunctional or instrumental manner. That is, participatoryapproaches are used to transfer technologies developed byresearchers but there is still relatively little or no emphasis ondeveloping the capacity of end-users to participate in theresearch process or decision-making that will affect the researchagenda. Hence, the type of participation used is generally researcher-driven.

Source: Johnson, N., N. Lilja and J.A. Ashby. 2000. Using Participatory Research andGender Analysis in Natural Resource Management Research: A Preliminary Analysis of thePRGA Inventory. PRGA Working Document 10. CIAT, Cali.


Contributed by:Barun GurungEmail: [email protected]

RecommendationsTo ensure consistency in the use of approaches and maintain quality ofparticipation, the following organizational structures need to be in place:

q Structural improvements to enhance vertical and horizontalcommunications, including participatory monitoring and evaluation(PM&E) systems that link feedback across stakeholders, communicationbetween projects within the organization and development of processesthat encourage trans-disciplinary (as compared to multi-disciplinary) teams.

q Existing terms of references (TORs) of scientists need to be altered toinclude the expertise or appropriate use of participatory methods.

q Existing incentive structures of the organization need to recognize andreward expertise and appropriate use of participatory methods.

Such changes in organizational processes need to be complemented andaccompanied by larger initiatives that focus on the following:

q Capacity development to encourage a process of gender-equitablestakeholder-client representation in the decision-making process andnetworking with “champions” who are in a position to make a difference.

q To continue building compelling evidence of impact.

q Action research partnerships through organizational change with a criticalmass of international and national agricultural research centers.

q Communication and partnerships strategies that are constantly evolving.

ReferencesGauchan, D., M. Joshi and S. Biggs. 2000. A Strategy for Strengthening Participatory Technology

Development in Agricultural and Natural Resources Innovations Systems. The Case of Nepal.Paper presented at the workshop on “Strategy for Enhancing NARC Participatory TechnologyDevelopment and Linkages”, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Lalitpur. May 30-31.

Groverman, V. and J. D. Gurung. 2001. Gender and Organizational Change: A Training Manual.International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Kathmandu, Nepal.

Johnson, N., N. Lilja and J.A. Ashby. 2000. Using Participatory Research and Gender Analysis inNatural Resource Management Research: A Preliminary Analysis of the PRGA Inventory.PRGA Working Document 10. CIAT, Cali.

Tichy, N.M. 1982. Managing Change Strategically: The Technical, Political and Cultural Keys,Organizational Dynamics, Autumn.


139From Piloting to Scaling Up PR&D: EnablingNepal Farmers to Grow a Healthy Potato Crop

From Piloting to Scaling Up PR&D:Enabling Nepal Farmers to Grow aHealthy Potato Crop

articipatory research and development (PR&D) often begins with a pilotactivity that involves a small number of participants within a limited geographicarea. No matter how successful, these pilot activities inevitably face the challengeof scaling up successful PR&D experiences beyond the pioneering farmer groupsand farming communities.

This paper describes a PR&D experience in Nepal which involved: a) a pilotproject in two hill communities for collectively managing a potato disease; and b)a subsequent scaling-up phase for enabling farmers – across diverse agroecologicaland socio-economic environments in the country – to grow a healthy potato crop.In moving from piloting to scaling up, this case project highlights key PR&Dchallenges — in responding to expanding needs and problems, introducingrelevant agricultural innovations, adapting participatory methods to facilitatelearning and action, and in setting up an enabling institutional and policyenvironment.

The ContextPotato plays an important role in the livelihood and food security of farmingcommunities in Nepal, a country considered one of the world’s mostunderdeveloped. As the fourth most important food crop in the country, potatocultivation extends from the southern plains to the remote northern mountains.Per capita consumption of potato in Nepal is one of the highest in southwestAsia. It is the most important staple food especially in the mid- and high-hill areas.

4949494949

P


While the crop makes a significant contribution to national agriculturaldevelopment, Nepal lags behind other countries in terms of potato productivity.It has one of the lowest national yield averages globally and for the developingworld. Diseases are a major limiting factor in improving potato productivity in thecountry. Late blight and bacterial wilt appear in epidemic proportions, and it is notuncommon for farmers to lose their entire potato field to these diseases.

Use of low-quality seed, prohibitive cost ofchemical control measures, and poor cropmanagement practices are among the key factorscontributing to the widespread occurrence ofdisease problems. In addition, potato farmers arebarely reached by formal research and extensionservices. Government agencies are constrained bylimited resources and capacities to respond toproblems faced by potato farmers in far-flung areas.

Piloting Action Research: Community Management ofBacterial Wilt DiseaseThe Lumle Agricultural Research Center (LARC) is a regional research centerdealing with key agricultural issues in western Nepal. One of LARC’s programpriorities is to undertake research and outreach activities for hill farmers. Whilepotato is a traditional staple food in this hill communities, crop production isconstrained by limited access to land and other resources, as well as by the lessfavorable agroclimatic conditions.

Problem Identification and PrioritizationDuring the 1980s, LARC conducted several diagnostic and assessment activitieswith potato farmers in the western hills. Based on informal reports from farmersabout serious crop losses, LARC researchers conducted technical assessment ofcrop production constraints, ranging from soil analysis to disease monitoring.Through a group trek method, locally called samuhik bhraman, researchers andfarmers also conducted joint field inspections. The preliminary observations werethen discussed in community meetings, during which courses of actions wereidentified and agreed upon.

Results of participatory diagnosis and assessment identified bacterial wilt as thesingle most important problem facing potato farmers. From the late 1980s to early1990s, reduction in farm yield due to bacterial wilt was documented to increasefrom 10% to over 90%. Its occurrence was mainly associated with the use ofinfected seed, along with planting on contaminated soil and poor cropmanagement practices.

Introducing a Socio-Technical InnovationIn 1993, LARC and UPWARD launched a research project to introduce aneffective way for local potato farmers to manage bacterial wilt. Previous research by

Since the early 1990s, theInternational Potato Center(CIP), through the Users’Perspectives With AgriculturalResearch and Development(UPWARD) program, has workedwith various public- andprivate-sector organizations inNepal to apply PR&D in helpingfarming communities effectivelymanage diseases and otherconstraints in potato production.


CIP, LARC and other research organizations had already developed technologycomponents anchored on seed and soil health. Drawing on these available researchoutputs, the project team formulated an integrated disease management (IDM)strategy that included the following technology components: 1) elimination ofinfected planting materials from program villages; 2) three-year crop rotation totemporarily substitute potato with non-host crops; 3) multiplication and use ofclean seed; and 4) rouging and field sanitation (Pradhanang et al., 1994).

However, in seeking to implement the IDM strategy, it became clear to the projectteam that the proposed technical solutions were not adequate to effectivelymanage the disease problem. There were crucial socio-cultural and economicfactors that hindered implementation of the technology components.Implementing a three-year ban on potato cultivation required potato-growinghouseholds to balance short-term food needs with long-term benefits of crophealth. Enforcing measures to control the diffusion of infected seed impliedrestricting the use of seed potato as a cultural symbol in traditional rituals (e.g., aswedding gifts) and the crop’s utilization in local livelihoods (e.g., serving potatodishes in restaurants and hotels catering to the tourism business). Mostimportantly, carrying out the full IDM strategy required full communityparticipation since non-compliance by even one farmer would create opportunitiesfor the pathogen to persist and spread in the community.

Two pilot villages were selected in the western mid-hills of Nepal, with altitudesof 2100 masl and 1800 masl, respectively. Through a series of communitymeetings and with the guidance of the project team, local farmers identified thesocial measures that need to accompany the technical components of the IDMstrategy (Table 1). To oversee implementation of the agreed IDM strategy, avillage-level committee was formed, consisting of at least 10 members elected byfarmers themselves. One of the key functions of the committee was to promoteincentives for participation (e.g., introducing alternative food crops during thethree-year moratorium on potato cultivation) and enforcing sanctions for non-compliance with the jointly agreed IDM strategy (e.g., imposing fines on farmersfound to have planted potato during the three-year ban, and uprooting potatoplants in the field).

Key Technical Components Key Social Components

Elimination of infected planting materials Reaching community consensus on IDMimplementation

Enforcement of community-agreedincentives and sanctions

Regular monitoring of IDM implementationby community members

Three-year moratorium on potatocultivation

Use of clean seed and quarantinescheme

Rouging and field sanitation

Formation of a village-level committee tooversee IDM implementation

Table 1. Technical and Social Components of the IDM Strategy for Bacterial Wilt


Impact EvaluationProject implementation was sustained in one village during the three-year period.All of the 51 farming households in the village fully complied with the technicaland social requirements for IDM, while the committee effectively functioned as afacilitation and monitoring unit. In contrast, operationalization of the IDMstrategy was prematurely terminated in the second village after the committeedisbanded within a year of launching the project. Among the key reasons were:farmers’ perception on the committee’s lack of formal authority to assume“police” powers, the resignation of key committee members due to emergingconflicts with farmers in the latter’s performance of their assigned tasks, and theinability of individual farmers to cope with pressures to meet immediate food andlivelihood needs of their own households. A risk group soon emerged in thecommunity, consisting of farmers who chose not to comply with the technicalmeasures for disease management while refusing to accept the sanctions that weresupposed to be meted on them.

The contrasting experiences in the two villages unwittingly provided the projectwith an opportunity to compare outcomes between one community thatsuccessfully carried out collective management of the disease and anothercommunity where the approach failed. Evaluation carried out after the three-yearperiod of IDM implementation revealed opposite outcomes. Field inspection inthe first village showed that bacterial wilt was completely eliminated. On the otherhand, bacterial wilt continued to be a problem in the second village where 75%disease incidence was observed in the potato fields of local farmers.

Scaling Up the Innovation for Bacterial WiltManagement

Moving Beyond the Pilot CommunitiesFollowing positive outcomes of the community-mobilization approach, a follow-up project was launched in 1998 that aimed to implement IDM in other keypotato-growing areas across Nepal. With funding support from the Swiss Agencyfor Development and Cooperation (SDC), CIP-UPWARD teamed up with theDepartment of Agriculture (DoA) through its Potato Development Section (PDS).The DoA was seen as the appropriate lead organization for the scaling up effortsgiven its national mandate agricultural extension and its existing network ofdistrict agricultural development offices (DADOs). In planning to scale up theinnovation for community management of bacterial wilt disease, the project teamrealized the following:

1. The innovation cannot exclusively focus on bacterial wilt because farmersin potato-growing areas simultaneously face several disease constraints.Besides bacterial wilt, the other major diseases were late blight, wart, blackscurf and common scab.

2. In many cases, bacterial wilt is not the key disease constraint. And often,these involve a broader set of problems that include diseases, seed supplyand quality, and general crop management.


3. To reach more farmers more quickly, a more extensive approach needs toemployed for facilitating group learning to help farmers manage location-specific constraints to growing a healthy potato crop.

The IDM innovation subsequently evolved toward integrated crop management(ICM) of potato through participatory group training based on farmer fieldschool (FFS) approach.

Drawing from principles in adult education, the FFS is a season-long trainingprocess that farmers undergo through the facilitation of extensionists andresearchers. The farmer field school (FFS) approach involves a group of farmersparticipating in a series of sessions for experiential learning and experimentationbased on a curriculum jointly developed by farmers and researchers/extensionists.

Scaling Up Through FFS-Potato ICMFFS was first developed in the late 1980s for rice integrated pest management(IPM) by the Indonesian IPM Program, supported by the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO). This pioneering work formed the basis for an UPWARD-supported project in sweetpotato integrated crop management (ICM) in Indonesia,whose experiences in turn were a major input in CIP’s efforts to adapt the FFSapproach for potato IDM in Nepal.

While the lack of any previous experience in potato FFS was a major bottleneck,the project nevertheless benefited from an earlier FAO program in Nepal focusingon rice integrated pest management (IPM). Following its first-year implementationin 1999-2000, the project sought major adaptations of the FFS approach, asdeveloped for rice IPM in Nepal, to suit the potato crop and the constraints beingaddressed (Table 2).

Because there was a wide variability in potato systems and constraints among thenine FFS sites, each group of facilitators and farmers developed its own locally-relevant training curriculum. Thus, although they had a common focus on seedhealth and late blight, each FFS took the decision of including bacterial wilt, truepotato seed, and/or crop management.

Each FFS consisted of 15 to 18 weekly sessions involving 25 farmers on the average. Atypical three-hour session was divided into three integral parts:

1) conduct of agroecosystem analysis and/or field observation in relation to the currentgrowth stage of the crop

2) small-group discussion followed by general presentation and synthesis of key learningpoints

3) presentation of relevant and timely special topic

Learning plots enabled participants to conduct simple experiments for evaluating technologyoptions or seeking answers to key knowledge gaps identified at the beginning of the FFS.

From 1999-2003, a total of 1,320 farmers from 14 districts across the country hadparticipated in FFS-potato ICM.


Table 2. Comparison of Original FFS-Rice IPM and the Emerging FFS-potato ICMApproach in Nepal

Aspect

Learningplots

Frequencyof sessions

Rice-FFS Potato IDM Remarks

Experi-mentation

Time frame Season-long IDM requires longer time frame since itssuccess is determined by doing afollow-up by replanting producedseeds in next seasons.

Multi-season

Experimentation,seed multiplication/maintenance

Seed is an important component ofIDM. Learning plot is also used tomultiply/maintain good-quality seed.

Weekly Weekly, but withmore frequentinspection for lateblight detection.

Depends on appearance of diseasesymptoms, especially for late blight.Sessions need not be weekly early in theseason, however they need to be morefrequent (2-3 per week) when lateblight/bacterial wilt symptoms begin toappear.

AESA Learning by“discovery”by farmers

AESA needs to becomplemented byother “discovery”methods

To be used more selectively sinceweekly AESA produces data which maynot be directly useful/relevant forpotato IDM.

Disease and seed management areclosely interrelated. FFS needs to dealwith the interaction among diseaseand seed factors, as well as dynamicsbetween potato and other crops.

Makingthingsvisible

DirectlythroughAESA

Directly andindirectly

Unlike insects, pathogens are often notvisible. Experiments to show the“effects” need to be done.

Evaluation Impact afterFFS season

Impact after severalseasons

Disease management takes severalseasons to complete. Impactassessment needs to be done only afterseveral seasons.

Scope Singleconstraint –crop

Multiple constraints– cropping system

Institutionalization and Policy SupportThe FFS learning plots were also intended to serve as vehicles for multiplyinghealthy tuber seed potato that could be distributed to local farmers at the end ofthe FFS. As participants pointed out, knowledge gained from FFS would havelittle value to them unless they have access to good-quality seed that is an essentialinput to the practice of potato IDM in their respective farms. The project realized,equally important in potato IDM is setting up local social and institutionalarrangements for ensuring a more equitable access and sharing of good-qualityseed produced through the FFS.

At the national level, the project realized that sustaining FFS-potato ICM requireslonger-term funding commitment from the government. While extension workershave been keen in implementing FFS activities, they need funding support totravel to remote potato farming communities and to secure clean seed and othertraining materials. On the other hand, government funds can only be accessed ifthere is an officially approved allocation from the annual government budget foragricultural extension.


Impact EvaluationThe project conducted a two-part evaluation to compare outcomes among threegroups of farmers: a) FFS participants; b) other farmers who had contact withFFS participants; c) other farmers who had no contact with FFS participants.

An initial impact evaluation was conducted in 2003 primarily to assess changes inknowledge and practice. Over 80% of FFS participants correctly answered aknowledge test item on judicious use of chemicals, and likewise adopted thepractice of using healthy seed. The evaluation also revealed diffusion ofinnovation, whereby an FFS participant shared information on potato ICM to anaverage of 18 other farmers.

A follow-up impact evaluation was conducted in 2004, which sought to assesslonger-term outcomes particularly socio-economic benefits of FFS-potato ICM tofarming households. Similar to the initial evaluation, findings indicated that useof clean seed was the most common ICM practice adopted by farmers two yearsafter the FFS. The evaluation also noted farmers’ increased reliance on good-quality seed that was multiplied and maintained on-farm. Economic analysisshowed that gross and net returns to land and labor significantly increased in posttraining as compared to the pre-training.

Formative Lessons from the ExperienceThe project experience in piloting and scaling up innovation for improved potatoproduction highlighted the following key lessons:

1. PR&D enables research and extension workers to finetune technologicalinnovations according to the local agro-ecological and socio-economicsetting. This was illustrated in the pilot project to mobilize communitiesfor managing bacterial wilt disease.

2. Agricultural innovations successfully introduced in pilot projects cannotbe expected to have the same level of outcomes and degree of relevancewhen scaled up beyond the pioneering farmers and farming communities.Variability in needs, opportunities and conditions require that theseinnovations need continuous adaptation when introduced to othercommunities. In this case, the initial focus on bacterial wilt was laterexpanded to cover other disease and crop management practices.

3. Scaling up requires a careful re-examination of agricultural innovations notonly in terms of the learning content but also of the means fordissemination and sharing. The community mobilization approach was keyto developing and introducing an integrated socio-technical innovation.However, scaling up the innovation required other learning mechanisms toenhance reach to more farmers and their communities.


ReferencesCampilan, D. 2002. Linking Social and Technical Components of Innovation Through Social

Learning: The Case of Potato Disease Management in Nepal. In: Leeuwis, C. and R. Pyburn(eds). Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs, Social Learning in Rural Resource Management.International Research and Reflections Series. WUR, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 135-146.

Dhital, B.K., A.Vhaidya, R.R. Pandey and P.M. Pradhanang. 1996. Integrated Management ofBacterial Wilt Through Community Approach: Lessons from the Hills of Nepal. In: CIP-UPWARD. Into Action Research, Partnerships in Asian Rootcrop Research andDevelopment, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. pp43-58.

Ghimere, S.R. and B.K. Dhital. 1998. Community Approach to the Management of Bacterial Wiltof Potato in the Hills of Nepal: A Project Terminal Report. Occasional Paper No. 98/1.LARC, Lumle, Nepal.

Hidalgo, O., D. Campilan and T. Lama. 2001. Strengthening Farmer Capacity to Grow a HealthyPotato Crop in Nepal. In: Scientist and Farmer, Partners in Research for the 21st Century. 1999-2000. CIP Program Report. Lima, Peru. pp336-342.

Pitamber, R.C. and K.P. Pant. 2004. Field-level Outcomes of Potato Integrated DiseaseManagement Through Farmer Field School Approach in Nepal: A Project Evaluation Report.CIP-UPWARD, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

Pradhanang, P.M. and J.G. Elphingstone (eds.). 1997. Integrated Management of Bacterial Wilt ofPotato: Lessons from the Hills of Nepal. LARC, Lumle, Nepal.

Contributed by:Dindo CampilanEmail: [email protected]


Institutionalizing ParticipatoryTechnology Development 147

n the last decade, a growing number of organizations have approachedagricultural research and extension in ways that involve farmers as equal partnersin all stages of the development process. These groups have also focused onstrengthening the capacities of farmers and rural communities to experiment andinnovate.

It has been recognized that these interactive approaches, often referred to by theumbrella term Participatory Technology Development (PTD) (van Veldhuizen etal., 1997), are necessary in order to improve agriculture and natural resourcemanagement, especially in the less well-endowed rural areas (Röling, 1996).Recently, some promising efforts have been made to institutionalize PTD withinlarge organizations of agricultural research, extension and education/training -both government and non-government organizations (NGOs).

This paper compares and analyzes some experiences in different countries ininstitutionalizing PTD, based on a study initiated by the International Institute ofRural Reconstruction (IIRR) in the Philippines and ETC Ecoculture in theNetherlands. Nineteen organizations took part in the study as well as in thesubsequent one-week workshop on the topic.

The concept of Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) originally referred to effortsof scientists to involve farmers in (part of) their research activities. The approachhas gradually evolved into PTD, which gives a more central role to farmers andtheir organizations in defining research agendas and in planning andimplementing the actual research, with the aim of increasing local research anddevelopment capacities.

Institutionalizing ParticipatoryTechnology Development

I

5050505050


Institutionalization: Basic PremisesThe analysis during the workshop focused on the question already formulated bythe first advocates of PTD, when its framework was developed in the late 1980s(Haverkort et al., 1988): how to sustain the PTD processes beyond short, oftenproject-based interventions.

Institutionalization of PTD is understood as making PTD an integral part of theregular programs and activities of institutions of research, extension andeducation. The focus in this paper is on integrating PTD into formal research,while fully recognizing that this will not be the only activity that a good researchinstitute will involve itself in. Conventional, on-station research will continue tobe required, but hopefully inspired by and linked to an active PTD program toensure relevance and applicability of the on-station work. Putting PTD in thisperspective may help to overcome the resistance of many researchers to theapproach.

However, if PTD is made compulsory for everybody, if this is backed up with along list of formal rules, regulations and formats, bureaucracy will have prevailedand the spirit of PTD may disappear. Effective PTD needs understanding andmotivation rather than commands, and needs to balance rules with freedom forcreativity and room for maneuver. This implies finding a balance betweenstandardization of steps, methods and techniques versus responsiveness ofresearchers to local and time-specific opportunities and needs. Instead ofrecommending a standard package for institutionalizing PTD, a set of basicelements that need to be part of (the training in) each PTD program wasformulated:

q The main principles such as: farmer needs-based, relevance of localknowledge and local innovative capacities and complementarities ofknowledge from science, collaboration on the basis of equal partnerships.

q The main clusters of activities(‘steps’) with the outputexpected to be achieved byeach. Usually the PTDframework includes six clusters(getting started, understandingproblems and opportunities,looking for things to try, farmer-led experimentation, sharing resultsand sustaining the process).

q Collection of methods fromwhich to choose in eachsituation and guidelines onhow to use them.

q Clear and simple case studies,which show how PTD works in the field.


General PTD Implementation GuidelinesBased on these basic premises, staff can be encouraged to plan their own fieldwork (i.e., participatory planning within the organization), possibly weekly ormonthly, to be supported and monitored by those responsible. The concept ofinstitutionalization is closely linked to, yet distinctly different from, that of scalingout or scaling up, subjects of recent studies (IIRR, 2000; Guendel et al., 2001). Thelatter two refer to the wider notion of reaching more people more quickly, eitherthrough widening the geographic area and/or number of cases in which theapproach is applied or through moving upwards to involve various levels in anorganization. Scaling up is a necessary step towards institutionalization, but aproject can manage to reach into several levels of an institution, yet still notensure that work at these various levels continues after a project has ended (i.e.,that PTD becomes part and parcel of the regular programs and activities).

Institutionalization refers to a process of change. The case studies revealed thatthe following four larger sets or groups of activities are often central to thisprocess of change:

q Advocacy and campaigning: in formal or informal ways, relevantpeople are informed of the importance and effectiveness of PTD, andtheir motivation for change identified and mobilized.

q Capacity building: Staff at various levels are trained, and provided withfollow-up support and coaching.

q Pilot field activities: PTD is initiated and done at a smaller scale todevelop locally applicable methods and tools, to create evidence of itseffectiveness, and to provide a learning ground for all involved.

q The internal institutional change per se: Managers and staff reviewinternal mechanisms and structures in view of the need for PTD and plan,implement, monitor and evaluate necessary changes.

Institutional change processes can be complex, particularly in the case of researchinstitutes which try to incorporate PTD into their regular operations. PTD is notjust one of many different methods; it implies a fundamentally different way ofworking with farmers and other end-users and internally with colleagues, superiorsand employees.

Tichy (1982), followed by authors such as Groverman and Gurung (2001), foundthat, in complex institutional change processes, one has to look at the mission/mandate of the institute, the structure and human resources. Moreover,institutional change has not only a technical-administrative dimension (the ‘nutsand bolts’), but also includes political (power and decision making) and socio-cultural aspects (norms and values). The complexity of institutional change issummarized in Table 1.


The Research Organization: A Hard Nut to Crack?Why is it so difficult for research organizations to accept and incorporate PTD?Or is it? The prevalent hierarchical management structure is part of the problemalthough this may be less so in the case of the international research institutes ascompared to national research institutes. There is often a culture of individualismand specialization in which researchers develop very specific, narrow areas ofinterest. This makes it difficult to pay attention to the wider developmentperspective of their research and also to interact with researchers of otherdisciplines. Through their training and peer interaction, researchers come to lookat their knowledge as superior relative to the knowledge of farmers and others. Asfunding is often assured (or at least used to be) through regular governmentchannels, and the influence of other actors in research organizations is otherwiselimited, research does not develop notions of accountability other than toimmediate superiors and sources of funding.

At a more fundamental level, much of this is caused or reinforced by theprevailing view on what 'good' science is all about. Replicability of the research,the use of a limited range of statistical approaches, the acceptance of results bypeers, for instance, through specialized journals, are more important notions thanevidence of a need for the research, its direct, practical relevance and the spreadand use of research results. Staff reward and incentive mechanisms furtherencourage researchers in this direction.

But there are also positive developments and opportunities for change withinresearch organizations. In many countries, individual research centers are givenincreased freedom in planning and implementing research. At the same time, the

Table 1. Areas of Attention in Institutional Change, Classified According to KeyOrganizational Components (mission, structure and human resources) and Aspects(administrative, political and socio-cultural)

Administrative:the tangible'nuts and bolts'

Political:the power game

Socio-cultural:identity andbehavior

Mission/mandate

Operations: planningand implementingaction plans,monitoring andevaluation (M&E),budgeting

Policy making:developing policiesand strategies;influence from insideand outside; role ofmanagement

Organizational culture:symbols, traditions,norms and valuesunderlyingorganizational andstaff behavior; socialand ethical standards

Structure

Tasks andresponsibilities: levels,positions and tasks;procedures andinstructions;information andcoordination systems

Decision making:formal and informalmechanisms;supervision andcontrol; conflictmanagement

Cooperation andlearning: norms andvalues underlyingarrangements forteamwork, mutualsupport, networking,reflection, learningfrom experience, etc.

Human resources

Expertise: quantityand quality of staff;recruitment and jobdescriptions; facilitiesand infrastructure;training andcoaching

Room for maneuver:space for innovation;rewards andincentives; careerpossibilities; workingstyles

Attitudes: dedicationto the organization;commitment to workobjectives and topartners/clients;stereotyping;willingness to change


PTD

centers are challenged to raise research funds from sourcesother than the regular government budget, making thempotentially more open to the needs and interests of otheractors. Compared to large government extension agencies,research institutes already have internal organizationalflexibility. They certainly avail themselves of a potential ofrelatively well-educated staff capable of developing andimplementing PTD, if given the opportunity. To meet thechallenge of building research organizations capable of doing PTD, theopportunities provided by such positive developments should not be overlooked.

A Research Organization Capable of Doing PTDBelow is a summary of the key lessons derived from the workshop, groupedaccording to the aspects identified in Table 1. The importance of partnership as avehicle for institutionalizing PTD is also discussed.

The Nuts and Bolts of the OrganizationA research organization needs to define its role or 'niche' in PTD, include thePTD approach in research planning where applicable, and allocate resourcesaccordingly. More specifically, research planning and budgeting, monitoring andevaluation (M&E) should allow real involvement of farmers, and others in theplanning, thus increasing the accountability of research towards otherstakeholders. Some research institutes have initiated multi-stakeholder committeesto this end (Ampofo, pers. comm). Planning should also make resources/fundsavailable to build and participate in partnerships and for experimentation byfarmers. Locating the responsibilities for such funds as closely as possible with thepeople directly involved, including farmers, and the multi-actor partnerships oftenneeded for planning and budgeting call for a certain amount of “free rein” for partof researchers' time and part of the budget (innovation funds). In reality, overallfunding for agricultural research is declining in quite a few countries and, ifavailable, depends very much on external donors with frequently changing agendas.Obviously, this is not a situation conducive to the institutionalization of PTD,which has a long time horizon.

PTD-related process issues should be included in the organization's M&Eformats. This implies that M&E gives information not only about the technicalparameters of the experiments, but also about issues such as the awareness offarmers’ needs and potentials among researchers, the capacity of farmers andextension partners to continue experimenting on their own, and the extent of thespread of technologies. Social scientists have much to contribute to these issues.

At a meta-level, M&E of the changes occurring at the researchers’ level, the waythey approach collaboration with farmers and their interest in real farmer concerns,give an indication of the extent in which PTD has been institutionalized. Opondoet al. (2001) describe an attempt to develop and use such an M&E system, referredto as “outcome monitoring”. This helps to put the issue of the spread of PTDwithin the research organization on the agenda and creates additional momentumin the process of institutionalization.


In terms of the internal organization, it seems counterproductive to create aspecial 'PTD Unit.' However, there will probably be a need for a 'PTD taskforce'or 'PTD team' that plans and coordinates the process of change; createsopportunities for training and learning; and facilitates links both within theorganization and with other organizations concerned with PTD. Initially, this teammay itself be actively involved in PTD activities in the field so that theinstitutional learning can be based on these experiences. A PTD learning platformplaying the role of catalyst is also often necessary and can be created incollaboration with other organizations. Facilitation of networking and learning ina region or even in a country may then be included in its mandate. These units willprobably only survive after donor funding ends if they are set up as closely aspossible to existing coordination mechanisms and local funding sources.

A great variety of internal mechanisms can be used, adapted, or newlydeveloped to encourage PTD and its institutionalization. These include:

q Annual research review and planning meetings to include attentionspecifically to the research process and farmer participation.Attendance at these meetings by all relevant 'layers' in theorganization and by farmers and other stakeholders is necessary.

q Internal staff peer seminars to include attention to research processes,farmer participation and partnership development.

q Actively seeking other experiences in PTD and making these known withinthe organization through publications, informal discussion, seminars,feedback to colleagues after visits to these organizations, etc.

q Seizing opportunities to invite people from other institutions to share andlearn about each other's experiences in trying (to institutionalize) PTD.

q A simple mechanism to encourage staff to come up with new ideas, evenif not fully developed, 'think the unthinkable' (i.e., a place where theseideas can be collected and reviewed through regular meetings).

Training and coaching staff in new ways of working will be needed almostwithout exception. This starts with a review of the roles and responsibilities ofresearchers in PTD as compared to their partners, leading to good insight on therequired knowledge and skills profile. Researchers have an important role to play,through their analytical skills, in differentiating between cause and effect and indesigning experiments that lead to clear results. Researchers have the knowledge orthe links to knowledge on fundamental processes underlying the experiments asobserved by farmers; and the skills to write and report results systematically.

At a more general level, researchers need to be able to engage in dialogues, listenrather than lecture, cooperate rather than order, but need not become the keyfacilitators of PTD meetings and other activities.

Good experiences with respect to training and coaching have been gained insequential PTD training: several sessions interspersed with PTD-relatedassignments in the field or in the organization, each session building on the


learning of the previous one and the work experience in between. An internal PTDteam can play an important role in guiding and advising staff members betweenthe formal training sessions. The training should be designed to create the will andability of staff members to listen to farmers and appreciate their knowledge andability to innovate. This is best achieved through direct interaction with farmerswho are active in innovating and experimenting.

The Power Game, Decision Making and Room for ManeuverThe power game at higher levels turns research policy formulation issues andinfluence around, both from within the organization and from outside. Ways mustbe found to gain support from policymakers and high-level management for PTD.Allies within the organization need to be identified and their support needs to betapped. At the same time, it is important to listen to the concerns of those peoplewithin the organization who are not in favor of PTD approaches, and to seekways of alleviating their concerns, perhaps through adjustments in the approachforeseen. A key power issue is obviously control of funds. Mechanisms need to becreated to allow farmer organizations and other end-users of research results toexercise influence on the policy of research and development institutes, and oneway will be through farmer involvement in decisions on the use of research funds.

From the perspective of a change manager with a wish and/or mandate tostrengthen PTD, a two-level approach is emerging from the cases. The first isconcerned with gaining support from higher-level managers or policymakers, whilethe second involves strengthening PTD at intermediate and lower hierarchicallevels.

In working 'upwards,' PTD advocates do well to 'tone-down' their wording andfocus on the concerns and language effective at the various levels.

Putting PTD on the Agenda of Managers and Policymakers

q Inviting a key decision maker to chair the coordinating body (within anorganization or a platform of several organizations) to institutionalize and do PTD

q Creating an awareness of specific field experiences and results (e.g., byorganizing 'exposure' field visits for policymakers, where they can see and listen).

q Feeding field experiences into the regular planning and review meetings and intostrategic events concerned with agricultural development. There needs to beadequate documentation and evaluation of these experiences.

q Including policymakers in international workshops or conferences on PTD, andinviting them to make opening statements or keynote addresses and helpingthem to prepare for these.

q Preparing and distributing policy briefs on the concepts and practices of PTD.q Strategic distribution of 'easy-to-read' newsletters and books on PTD with

successful case stories.q Identifying existing policy (e.g., to achieve household food security), and

demonstrating how PTD can contribute to achieving these policy aims.

Individual researchers or research groups with field experience in PTD do well inbuilding partnerships and networks to influence policymakers in their institutesand beyond. After policies have been changed, there will still be a need for a'watchdog' function to monitor the progress of implementation. Efforts to createand maintain institutional support at higher levels can often also benefit frombuilding up pressure for change from below, for example, by inducing intensive


interaction with interested research staff to create examples of PTD and invitingreflection on these experiences. Thus, working 'upwards' often needs to becombined with and/or preceded by efforts to gain wider internal organizationalsupport for PTD.

At the organizational level itself, research management should consciously searchfor opportunities to practice participatory planning, implementation, and M&E. Inother words, listen to the experiences obtained at field level, review with relevantstaff the lessons learned and base future planning for the organization, at leastpartly, on these.

The room for maneuver for individual researchers to engage in PTD is furtherdetermined to a considerable extent by the recognition and rewards they get fortheir PTD work.

Researchers may also be concerned that collaboration with other researchers inPTD and the regular sharing of progress and findings with peers and partnersmight endanger their sole right to publish final results. Will comments of peersnecessarily lead to co-authorship? There seems no other way than to take theseconcerns seriously, put them on the table, and address them in each specificsituation.

Norms, Values and AttitudesNorms and values related to the mission and mandate of a research organizationmay refer to concerns for poverty reduction and the elimination of hunger,research relevance particularly for the poor, and the impact of innovation on theenvironment and social coherence as opposed to the norm that science is good ifit generates technologies that work in technical terms.

PTD-Supportive Reward and Incentive Measures at the Organizational Level

q Creation of an annual award for outstanding work by one or a few staff who includea PTD dimension. This is very effective if it is announced by senior management in apublic meeting.

q Organizing competitions. In Ethiopia, for example, researchers and extension/NGOstaff were challenged to document farmer innovations (Kibwana et al., 2000). Thiscreated interest and active involvement in PTD. The most interesting innovation wasrewarded (to both staff and farmer).

q Providing for opportunities to combine continuation of discipline-based research withinvolvement in PTD (internal matrix structure).

q The per diem system is both an encouragement to go to the field and a bottleneckthat prevents staff from going to the field, if a per diem is not available.

q In most organizations, there is a distinct committee that decideson allocation of funds for proposals/projects and/or oncareer advancement of staff. Targeting committeemembers for exposure to PTD may lead to inclusion ofPTD-relevant criteria, in committee decision making.

q PTD advocates should be made more aware ofscientifically recognized journals where PTD work canbe published.

q Finally, experiences seem to show that for many, onceinvolved in PTD, the positive interaction with andresponse from farmers is a reward in itself. Particularly,extension workers suddenly find new roles andacceptance from farmers.


Attitudes supportive of an effective PTD internal structure may include theconviction that problem solving in agriculture, as well as within the organizationitself, requires contributions from all involved, that no one knows everything andno one knows nothing, and that listening and probing are as important a skill aslecturing. Facilitators of PTD-institutionalization efforts would do well to link upwith experiences of socio-cultural change in organizations in other sectors, e.g.,gender mainstreaming.

In the workshop, the issue of attitudinal change among individual researchersfeatured more strongly than change at the level of norms and values. Respect forthe value of knowledge and farmers’ and extension agents’ experiences, combinedwith a more modest view on the value of one's own experience, is a crucial elementin attitudinal change. Situations need to be created to cultivate mutual respect.Encouraging researchers to identify local innovation and informal experimentationis one way to foster such mutual respect. This can be followed by internal staffseminars discussing and analyzing the significance of local innovation for the waythey work.

This approach has been applied quite successfully in the Indigenous Soil andWater Conservation (ISWC) Program, especially in Ethiopia and Tanzania(Kibwana et al., 2000). Staff at various levels in the organization can be exposed tofarmer realities and farmer creativity through field days, study programs, farmer-innovation markets (ISWC Cameroon case study), traveling seminars andinvolvement in RRA/PRA exercises.

Training programs for PTD do well to take attitudinalaspects seriously and include in their designs anycombination of the activities above. Designingselected training sessions following a Freirianapproach to learning (cf. Hope and Simmel, 1984)helps to confront participants with their basicassumptions and thus creates critical awareness asa basis for personal attitudinal change (forexamples of this approach to PTD training, seeChirunga and van Veldhuizen, 1997).

PTD PartnershipsWhile it is technically possible for research programs to embark on PTD programson their own, almost all cases underlined the importance and great benefits to beobtained if PTD is undertaken in the context of strong partnerships. Thisincludes partnerships with other research units or organizations, but moreimportantly those with extension, farmer organizations, and the private sector.Embarking on partnerships enables researchers to focus on what they are good at(i.e., analytical skills, experimental design, knowledge or link to knowledge onfundamental processes, writing and reporting), while relying on others for farmermobilization or organization, networking and facilitation of evaluation andlearning events, and the organization of input supply and marketing, for example.

Researchers face specific challenges in joining such partnerships. Researchobjectives need to be formulated widely if a convergence of objectives with other


actors is to be achieved. They need to have flexibility in order to reach agreementwith other organizations. An NGO is unlikely to be enthusiastic for a researchpartnership if the researcher wishes to work on a single aspect of one disease inone particular crop, unless it is a key threat to farmers in the area. Flexibility in theresearch offer can be expressed by including a certain amount of unallocatedresearch support funds in program proposals so that other researchers can bedrawn into the PTD process if critical issues arise beyond the competence of thelead researcher(s).

Research organizations need toprovide enough time, staff skills,and open mechanisms for in-depthnegotiation with potential partners,if only to overcome some of thehistorical feelings of mistrust thatmay be evident from NGOs andgovernment extension agencies.Research proposals may have toinclude a start-up phase withspecific sets of activities to this end.

Finally, researchers and their institutes may have to do more public relations tomake their research capacities, and particularly their readiness to work in a PTDcollaborative mode, widely known to possible partners, so that ultimately thesepartners will start approaching research for support and partnership.

The longer-term sustainability of collaborative research partnerships remains anarea of concern. In certain situations partnerships may end when a specific researchobjective has been reached. However, because local innovation processes need tocontinue over time and because research and extension should be systematicallysupporting these processes, mechanisms are needed that regularly bring togetherfarmers’ concerns and research and extension services. Partnerships can besustainable if funds are mobilized from 'regular', non-project sources and fromcontributions from all stakeholders.

The cases indicate that the decentralization of government structures in countriessuch as the Philippines and Uganda, which bring responsibilities and resources tothe local level, may provide opportunities for local governments to become keysponsors for local innovation and PTD partnerships.

ConclusionIncorporation of PTD in research institutes is possible but is in itself a multi-faceted social learning process (Röling, 1996) that starts often with changes atpersonal levels. A sufficiently long time frame and adequate flexibility in theprocess are crucial preconditions. In whatever form and way it is done, PTDultimately will imply that accountability of researchers and their institutes is notonly internally oriented to the main fund supporters, but expands to includefarmers, other end-users and partners in PTD and civil society at large.

Characteristics of Effective PTD Partnerships

Partners should:q share a common interestq agree on a common agendaq take time to clarify these early in the processq develop a joint understanding of PTD and their

respective rolesq mutually respect these rolesq plan togetherq organize for an opportunity to meet regularlyq mobilize and manage resources in a

transparent way


ReferencesChirunga, F. and L.R. van Veldhuizen. 1997. Daring to Learn: Report of a Training of Trainers in

PTD/PRA, Masvingo, Zimbabwe. ETC, Leusden.

Groverman, V. and D.J. Gurung. 2001. Gender and Organizational Change: A Training Manual.ICIMOD, Kathmandu.

Guendel, S., J. Hancock and S. Anderson. 2001. Scaling-Up Strategies for Research in NaturalResources Management: A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Haverkort, B., W. Hiemstra, C. Reijntjes and S. Essers. 1988. Strengthening Farmers’ Capacity forTechnology Development. ILEIA Newsletter 4 (3): 3-7.

Hope, A., S. Timmel and C. Hodzi. 1984. Training for Transformation: A Handbook forCommunity Workers. Mambo Press, Gweru, Zimbabwe.

IIRR. 2000. Going to Scale. IIRR, Silang, Cavite, Philippines.

Lizares-Bodegon, S., J. Gonzalves, S. Killough, A. Waters-Bayer, L. van Veldhuizen and M.Espineli (eds). Participatory Technology Development for Agricultural Improvement:Challenges for Institutional Integration. ETC Ecoculture/IIRR, Silang, Cavite.

Kibwana O.T., Mitiku H., L.R. van Veldhuizen and A. Waters-Bayer. 2000. Clapping with TwoHands. Bringing Together Local and Outside Knowledge for Innovation in Land Husbandryin Tanzania and Ethiopia - A Comparative Case Study. In: European Journal of AgriculturalEducation and Extension 27(3):133-142.

Röling, N.G. 1996. Towards an Interactive Agricultural Science. In: European Journal ofAgricultural Education and Extension 2(4): 35-48.

Tichy, N.M. 1982. Managing Change Strategically: The Technical, Political and Cultural Keys. In:Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1982.

van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer and H. de Zeeuw. 1997. Developing Technology withFarmers. A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning. Zed Books Ltd., London.

Workshop Case References

Ampofo, J.K.O., U. Hollenweger and S.M. Massomo. 2002. Participatory IPMDevelopment and Extension: The Case of Bean Foliage Beetles in Hai, NorthernTanzania. International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Tanzania.

Bunch, R. and M. Canas. 2002. Farmer Experimenters: The Technology They Develop ontheir Own. Association of Advisors for a Sustainable, Ecological and People-CenteredAgriculture (COSECHA), Honduras.

Campilan, D., C. Basilio, L. Laranang, C. Aguilar, C. Aganon and I. Indion. 2002. PTD forImproving Sweetpotato Livelihood in the Philippines. Users' Perspectives withAgricultural Research and Development (CIP-UPWARD), Philippines.

Ejigu J., Pound, B., Endreas G., Ousman S. and Furgassa B. 2002. Institutionalization ofFarmer Participatory Research in Southern Ethiopia: A Joint Learning Experience.Farmers' Research Project, FARM-Africa, Ethiopia.

Fidiel, M.M. 2002. The Experience of the Intermediate Technology Development Group inParticipatory Development of the Donkey-Drawn Plough in North Darfur, WesternSudan. Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) Animal TractionProject, Sudan.


Contributed by:Laurens van Veldhuizen, Ann Waters-Bayer, Scott Killough, Marise Espinelliand Julian GonsalvesEmail: [email protected]


Workshop Case References ... continued

Hart, T. and J. Isaacs. 2002. Transforming the Agricultural Research Council Focus FromOnly Supporting Commercial Farmers to Supporting Black Smallholder Farmers byMeans of PTD: A Case Study from the Deciduous Fruit Sector of South Africa.Agricultural Research Centre-Infruitec-Nietvoorbeij, South Africa.

Hoang Hui Cai, R. Felber and Vo Hung. 2002. PTD in Community-Based Forest LandManagement and as a Contribution to Building Up a Farmer-Led Extension Systemin Social Forestry: Case Study of Vietnam. Social Forestry Support Program, Vietnam.

Hocde, H. and D. Meneses. 2002. The Reunion of Two Worlds: Experience of the HeuterRegion, North Costa Rica, in the Construction Process of Participatory TechnologyDevelopment. Regional Program for Reinforcing Agronomic Research on BasicGrains in Central America (PRIAG), Costa Rica.

Joss, S. and K. Nadyrbek. 2002. Participatory Technology Development in the KyrgyzRepublic with Special Reference to Rural Advisory and Development Service inJalal Abad Oblast 1999-2000. Kyrgyz Swiss Agricultural Project (KSAP) Kyrgystan.

Mercado, A.R., D.P. Garrity and J. Gonsalves. 2002. Participatory TechnologyDevelopment and Dissemination: The Landcare Experience in the Philippines.International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)/Landcare, Philippines.

Moyo, E. and J. Hagmann. 2002. Facilitating Competence Development to Put LearningProcess Approaches into Practice in Rural Extension. Agricultural, Technical andExtension Services (AGRITEX), Ministry of Lands and Agriculture, Zimbabwe.

Naidu, Y.D. and E. van Walsum. 2002. PTD for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture in SouthIndia: Balancing Our Way to Scale. Agriculture Man Ecology (AME), India.

Naseh, A. and S. Seif. 2002. Case Study on Agro-environmental Pilot Project 1996-1998.The Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services (CEOSS), Egypt.

Opondo, C. and A. Stroud. 2002. Mapping Outcomes in Participatory Research:Researchers' Experiences in the Highlands of East Africa. African Highlands Initiative(AHI), Uganda

Perera, G.D. and B. Sennema. 2002. Towards Sustainable Development in MahaweliSettlements Through Farmer Participation. Mahaweli Authority, Sri Lanka.

Sabourin, E., P.R. Sidersky and L. Marcal da Silveira. 2002. Farmer Experimentation inNortheast Brazil: The Story of a Partnership Between Smallholders' Organizations andan NGO Seeking to Enhance Agricultural Innovation in the Agreste Area of ParaibaState. Assessoria e Servicios a Projetos en Agricultura Alternativa (AS-PTA), Brazil.

Song, Y. 2002. Exploring the Potential for Crop Development and BiodiversityEnhancement: Fostering Synergy Between the Formal and the Farmers' SeedSystems in China. Centre for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP), China.

Suvanjinda, P. 2002. Lessons Learned. Sustainable Agriculture Development Project(SADP), Thailand.

Tchawa, P., F. Nkapemin and J. M. Diop. 2002. Participatory Technology Developmentin Cameroon: The Route and Milestones in the Process of its Institutionalization.National Program for Agricultural Extension and Research (PNVRA), Cameroon.

159Scaling Up Through Participatory Trial Designs

esearchers, community activists, field workers and farm advisors are chargedto work with many stakeholders and develop technologies that have widespreadrelevance. There are a number of successful approaches to this, from participatorybreeding programs to farmer field schools. Many of these approaches involveexperimentation, either through fostering learning and testing of technologies byfarmers, or more formal trials for large-scale testing.

Participatory methods can be linked with trial designs to involve farmers and ruralstakeholders in defining experimentation objectives and assessment of technologyperformance. Conducting surveys in conjunction with trials is one important toolthat helps document farmer preferences and evaluation of the process, and of thetechnologies or varieties being tested. Detailed guides are available presentinginformation on how to carry out on-farm trials and complementary surveys (seefor example, Mutsaers et al., 1997).

What are the Key Scaling Up Issues in ParticipatoryResearchQuality interaction and investment of time and resources at a local level are criticalto building relationships and conducting cooperative, participatory research.Heterogeneity of the biophysical landscape and the diversity of stakeholders withtheir different agendas are also a reality. These pose barriers to scaling up and outto reach a wide audience. Financial and human resource support requirementswould have to be massive to engage many people in participatory action research.

Scaling Up Through ParticipatoryTrial Designs

R

5151515151


It is possible to hurdle these obstacles if attention to ‘scaling up’ is addressedexplicitly throughout the process, and participatory trial designs are used thatfoster:

q empowerment and investment in human resource capacity to enhance localexperimentation and adaptation efforts

q knowledge construction based on indigenous and scientific sources, tounderstand locally-specific agroecosystems, and conduct ‘meta-analysis’ ofuniversal aspects

To synthesize and develop lessons of wider interest from local learning andtechnology development, it is important to choose locations carefully for meta-analysis and for conducting trials. Locations need to be representative to facilitatescaling up and extrapolation. Location choice will also depend on the hypothesesbeing evaluated, the partners involved and the objectives, which are expected toevolve over time. In many cases, researchers, field workers and activists may wantto work with communities at locations that represent different agroecosystems andcultural groups, including marginal to endowed sites that have different degrees ofmarket access. Characterizing the physical and cultural landscape of the differentsites and building quality relationships at the sites build a foundation forsynthesis and scaling up efforts (Snapp and Heong, 2003). A wide range of pastand new information sources can provide insight, including surveys, indigenousknowledge, geo-referenced information and participatory exercises to buildrelationships and understand the historical, cultural and environmental context.This leads to the following suggestions for conducting participatory research thatcan be scaled up to reach more people:

q Start with surveys and documentation of perceptions and currentfarming/land management systems.

q Chose sites that are representative for participatory trials and to use inmeta-analysis.

q Engage farmers and other stakeholders in experimentation, empowermentand research priority setting.

q Build in iteration at every stage, and partnership with diverse stakeholders,to evaluate what beliefs change, and to incorporate indigenous knowledgeand reach more people.

Trial DesignsLarge-scale trial programs, with hundreds of on-farm sites, are often advocated fortesting new varieties or soil-enhancing technologies across an entire region. Ateach site, a farmer compares a selected number of ‘best bet’ technologies (orvarieties) to a local control. There is no replication at that site, but through the useof multiple sites the comparison is replicated many times over the landscape. Thisapproach takes advantage of variation in environment and management from farmto farm. Statistical approaches such as adaptability analysis rely on this variation totest technology or variety adaptation to different levels of stress andenvironmental conditions (Hildebrand and Russell, 1996).


Another approach is to work at a fewer number of sites and involve large groupsvisiting these selected sites, to help in the evaluation process. The selected sitescan be located on farmers’ fields or at research stations. This intensive type of‘replicated within a site’ approach frequently involves expert farmer panels(Sperling et al., 1993). Certain types of research on biological soil processes orparticipatory plant breeding selection from a large number of genotypes mayrequire some degree of within site replication and the intensive, uniformmanagement possible at a limited number of sites.

A third approach links the two trial designs together, providing a voice forfarmers. The ‘mother-baby’ trial design methodically links ‘replicated within a site’researcher-led mother trials with ‘one site, one replica’ farmer-led trials (Figure 1).A mother trial is centrally located in a village or at a nearby research station, andreplicated at the site. Baby trials are located on farmer fields, designed andmanaged by farmers. Thus, each baby trial site is a replicate, comparing a sub-setof technologies or varieties.

Figure 1. Mother - Baby Trial Design Layout

R e s e a r c h e rmanaged MOTHERtrial:Replicated designto evaluate manytreatments +controls(more than 30 plots)

FarmerBABYtrial:~ 4 plots

The ‘within site replicated’ mother trials are conducted at central locations (onresearch stations, near schools or community centers) and compare a large numberof technologies, such as different varieties grown at low and high fertility levels.On-farm baby trials compare a sub-set of the technologies, frequently thosechosen by the farmer implementing the baby trial (Snapp et al., 2002). Participatoryplant breeders have implemented mother and baby trials in a systematic mannerusing an incomplete block design to make sure all varieties are represented in anequal manner across the landscape (Witcombe et al., 2002).

For all types of trials, whether replicated within or across sites, there can be acontinuum of participation. Trials can be led by farmers, conducted jointly byfarmers and researchers or led by researchers with farmers acting as advisors. Theextent of local involvement in trial design and implementation depends on theobjectives of the endeavor. Experience and outcomes vary, depending on the levelof engagement by farmers and other stakeholders. These experiences and outcomesare summarized as follows:


q Where farmers lead, greater local empowerment results (Snapp et al., 2003).Researchers can learn a great deal about farmer decision-making bydocumenting what is locally chosen as experimental priorities, where trialsare located, and farmer perceptions of lessons learned. Observing farmerpractice and changes in practice over the experimentation period is one ofthe most valuable (and often overlooked) opportunities for researchers tolearn.

q Joint planning and carrying out trials is a valuable learning process, whichcan meet joint objectives of local learning and scientific findings. Itrequires considerable communication investment in building the trustnecessary to negotiate mutual objectives.

q Researcher-led trials are particularly useful if a primary objective is toderive knowledge about biological processes and extrapolate from localfindings. Participatory plant breeding and selection processes usuallydepend on researcher-led trials (Witcombe et al., 2002).

Participatory Trial Design as a ProcessInvestment of education, time and commitment to a joint process is essential onthe part of all parties, in order to successfully carry out participatory trials.Whether farmers or researchers are the lead actors in the experimentationprocesses, attention to developing an iterative process is vital, to ‘build-in’feedback and communication at each step. An example in presented in Table 1,from experiences in Malawi conducting mother and baby trials in partnershipswith farmers to develop improved soil fertility technologies (Snapp et al., 2002).Note that frequent meetings were held with countrywide partners, and with localcommunities.

Surveys are important tools that have to be integrated throughout the process.Semi-formal interviews are also valuable, where diverse stakeholders and trialparticipants are asked open-ended questions. Responses to open-ended questionsoften provide new insights. This type of qualitative data can be statisticallyevaluated by determining the major categories represented by the answers, thencalculating the percentage of responses per category.

In Malawi, short surveys were conducted to document farmer preferences, anddetailed baseline characterization. Information about the farm wealth status andreliance on crop sales for income, and other demographiccharacteristics of the farmer was gathered.Farmer preference data could thus be putin a socio-economic perspective. It isimportant to be able to make inferencesabout how labor availability, incomesources and farm market goals influenceassessment of technologies. There areguides now available that providestatistical advice for preference ranking oftechnologies (Bellon and Reeves, 2002).


Table 1. Sequence of Events to Initiate and Carry Out Trials Through a ParticipatoryIterative Process

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Months 1-3

q Literature reviewand stakeholderanalysis

q Intial, large-scalesurvey carriedout across allsites: people,soils, agro-ecosystems

q Researchersreport tocommunitiesinitial trial finding

q Documentfarmerevaluation

q Researchersreport to localand largercommunities

Months 4-6

q First meetingwithgovernmentand NGOstakeholders

q Survey sites

q Communitiesand localinstitutionsreviewtechnologyoptions withresearchers,design trials

q Third meetingwithgovernmentand NGOstakeholders

q Rev iewfindings

q Plan ongoingactivities

q Second large-scale surveyconducted onadoption,farmerperceptions,soils

Months 7-9

q Chooserepresentativesites andcharacterizesites

q Introduction tocommunities

q Secondmeeting withgovernmentand NGOstakeholders

q Review trialobjectives

q Initiate trials

q Trialscontinue, newones may beinitiatedbased onfarmer interest

q Researcherssummarizeresults, in termsof farmerperceptionsandbiologicalperformance,soils

Months 10-12

q Visioningexercises withcommunities

q Evaluateopportunitiesand constraints

q Negotiate trialobjectives

q Conductevaluation withfarmers (surveys)

q Farmer to farmerfield days andfarm visits withstakeholders

q Researchersevaluate dataacross sites

q Conductevaluation withfarmers (shortsurveys)

q Farmer to farmerfield days andfarm visits withstakeholders

q Researchersevaluate dataacross sites

q Fourth meetingwithcountrywidestakeholders,policymakers,farmerrepresentatives

q Planning newdirections

Choosing representative sites, and conducting in-depth characterization, are crucialto the scaling up process (Snapp and Heong, 2003). Then, analyses can beconducted across trial sites to determine the potential for wider-scale adoption ofa technology. As shown in Table 1, the Malawi experience involved agroecosystemcharacterization of case study sites where mother and baby trials were carried outwith farmers. Local data was collected on rainfall patterns and soil types, alongwith consulting government databases. Socio-economic characteristics weredocumented, such as infrastructure, market access and demographics. Conductingstakeholder analysis and local visioning exercises provided insights into historyand goals of different groups in each area where we worked intensively.

In working with different organizations across Malawi, we found that the sametrial design could be implemented in different ways, depending on local partners.All the partners were interested in increasing farmer participation, but levels of


farmer involvement varied from site to site (Snapp et al., 2003). The institutionalorganization and goals of partners at each site made a difference. We worked witha wide range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private industry,university and government partners. At some sites, particularly at sites whereNGOs took the lead, farmers were lead actors. Farmers designed the comparisons,selected the types of technologies and varieties to compare and lay out the trials.Researchers and crop advisors (from NGOs and from government extension)acted as catalysts and information sources. Farmers were the lead.

In Figure 2 where farmer-led trial plots are represented, note that comparisons oftechnologies tend to be simple (1 or 2 technologies compared to a current system),involve large portions of a field and may be irregular in shape. The larger areainvolved allows farmers to fully judge the labor involved and scope of thepotential benefits of a technology, as a realistic portion of the farm is represented.

At other sites, a joint effort was achieved by farmers and researchers workingtogether. In Figure 3, cooperative trials are shown, which tended to involve slightlymore complex comparisons, and necessarily, smaller plots. Finally, Figure 4 showsresearcher-led comparisons which tended to involve a larger number ofcomparisons, with more rigidly controlled characteristics at each site (for example,weeding inputs might be more consistent from plot to plot in a researcher-led on-farm trial) and smaller, more regular sized plots. Scientific findings regardingbiological processes such as levels of nutrient recycling were documented ingreater detail at researcher-led sites.

Figure 2. Farmer-Led TrialsThis frequently involves NGO or otherfarm advisors, large plots laid outinformally and frequently simple,paired comparisons of a new optionand current farmer practice.

current farmingsystem practice

alternativepractice farmer

is trying out

Figure 3. Cooperative EffortFarmers choose among the best betoptions presented by researchers andextension. A comparison is conductedbetween these options and the farmer-designed controls – the farmer’s best bet.Plots are laid out by farmers withresearcher input.

Figure 4. Researcher-LedGenerally, researchers choose four ormore best bet technology options tocompare. These are a sub-set of allthe options compared in the mothertrial. Farmers manage the trial;researchers monitor farmer practice.


Statistical and Economic AnalysisAdaptability analysis is a useful regression approach that allows performance oftechnologies to be compared across a range of environments, where average yieldor edaphic factors are used as an environmental index (Hildebrand and Russell,1996). It is possible to evaluate trials conducted with replication at a site (mothertrials), or replicated across sites (baby trials) and any combination usingadaptability analysis. A useful aspect of this approach is the ability to test varietyand technology performance under stressed conditions. This provides insight intothe risks associated with different technologies. Farmers are interested intechnologies which are low risk and perform across a wide range of environments.Regression type models such as adaptability analysis are also straightforward tounderstand, and lend themselves to presentations to a wide range of stakeholders.

Other statistical approaches to analyze participatory trial designs are described inBellon and Reeves (2002). These include mixed models, like factor-analytic modelsfor modeling variance and co-variance from multi-environment trial data. Anincomplete lattice design for mother and baby trials has been used to evaluatestress-tolerant varieties of maize, and farmer-preferred rice varieties.

Economic analysis of net benefits is another valuable approach to evaluatingtechnology performance. A detailed description of how to estimate net benefitsassociated with a technology is presented in a booklet by CIMMYT (1988).

LearningOverall, this experience points out valuable lessons:

q Communication is the foundation of any successful participatory researchendeavors.

q A through review of the literature and stakeholder analysis should beconducted initially as it will broaden the range of partners, technologyoptions and participatory approaches considered.

q Facilitated discussions or role-playing and brainstorming are usefulexercises in thinking through and defining the goals of the participatoryresearch. This investment in partnership building will improve the designof the trials, and levels of engagement with different stakeholders.

q Choosing the most appropriate trial design depends on the goals of theparticipatory research project. If generation of knowledge is a primary goal,then researcher-led trials may be most appropriate. Frequently, thisinvolves replicated ‘mother trials’. Replicated across the landscaperesearcher-led ‘baby trials’ may be an overlooked opportunity for researchon biological processes across different scales.

q Leadership of trials by farmers should be considered if empowerment offarmers to conduct experimentation and understanding of farmer decisionmaking are major goals of the project.


q For either mother or baby trials, it is important to use trial designs andstatistical analysis that document variability across sites. Variability is anopportunity to understand processes involved and to identify technologiesthat perform well across different environments.

q Across all trial designs, it is important to ‘build in’ a voice for farmers andother stakeholders in the research process. This can be through jointdiscussions of outputs, investing time and resources in forging farmer-researcher partnerships and through conducting surveys. Farmers provideunique insights into analysis and results. Identification of trade-offs andreasons for variation in performance can be the basis for new hypotheses.

q Documenting farmer assessment is critical to identifying promising newtechnologies and varieties.

ReferencesBellon, M.R. and J. Reeves (eds). 2002. Quantitative Analysis of Data from Participatory Methods

in Plant Breeding: URL http://www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics /map/research_tools/manual/ Quantitative/Contents.htm

CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economic TrainingManual. Completely Revised Edition. Mexico, pp. 78: CIMMYT.

Hildebrand, P.E. and J.T. Russell. 1996. Adaptability Analysis: A Method for the Design, Analysisand Interpretation of On-Farm Research and Extension. Iowa State University. 189pp.

Mutsaers, H.J.W., G.K. Weber, P. Walker and N.M. Fisher. 1997. A Field Guide for On-FarmExperimentation. IITA/CTA/ISNAR, Ibadan, Nigeria. 235 pp.

Snapp, S.S., M.J. Blackie and C. Donovan. 2003. Realigning Research and Extension Services:Experiences from Southern Africa. Food Policy 28: 349-363.

Snapp, S.S. and K.L. Heong. 2003. Scaling Up: Participatory Research and Extension to ReachMore Farmers. In: Pound, B., S. S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (eds.). Uniting Scienceand Participation: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Earthscan, U.K.and IDRC, Canada.

Snapp, S.S., G. Kanyama-Phiri, B. Kamanga, R. Gilbert and K. Wellard. 2002. Farmer andResearcher Partnerships in Malawi: Developing Soil Fertility Technologies for the Near-Termand Far-Term Experimental Agriculture 38:411-431.

Sperling, L., M. E. Loevinsohn and B. Ntabomvura. 1993. Rethinking the Farmer’s Role in PlantBreeding: Local Bean Experts and On-Station Selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture29:509-519.

Witcombe, J.R., L.B. Parr and G.N. Atkin (eds). 2002. Breeding Rainfed Rice for Drought-ProneEnvironments: Integrating Conventional and Participatory Plant Breeding in South and SEAsia. IRRI and DFID.

Contributed by:Sieglinde SnappEmail: [email protected]


http://www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics/map/research_tools/manual/Quantitative/Contents.htm

http://www.cimmyt.org/Research/Economics/map/research_tools/manual/Quantitative/Contents.htm

167Beyond Integrated Pest Management: From Farm Householdsto Learning Capacity and Innovation Systems

Beyond Integrated PestManagement: From FarmHouseholds to LearningCapacity and InnovationSystems

I n 1989, the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD)funded Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE) towork in Nicaragua on integrated pest management (IPM). The initial projectprescribed research, validation and technology transfer to make IPM more relevantfor farm families with limited resources. The project is now finishing its thirdfunding cycle, and has both broadened and deepened its approaches.

Looking Back: The Learning PathThe current phase titled “Regional Program for IPM and Coffee Agroforestry”focuses on observational skills, ecological and economic reasoning, decision-making capacity and learning cycles through multi-actor and multi-organizationalparticipatory methods with more than 70 local and national organizations. It stilldoes replicated research, but has incorporated new layers of working methods andlinkages. Recently, we have coalesced this experience into a framework oforganizational learning capacity linked to local and national innovation systems inwhich the flow of information and linkages for knowledge generation play a keyrole.

This paper briefly explains why and then describes the approaches, with attentionto the complementarity of diverse dimensions.

5252525252


Lessons Along the Learning Path

View from Farmers’ Fields – Variability and UncertaintyFarm households in Central America make crop and pest management decisionsunder extreme uncertainty. Hurricanes, droughts and even normal weathervariability affect crop growth, cropping practices and food web dynamics. Newpests have been introduced and routine pesticide use and other changes incropping practices contribute to new pest problems. The farmgate prices foragricultural products fluctuate wildly, but markets have also diversified into nicheproducts which were unknown a decade ago. Farm households themselves are notstatic as they move through child rearing and educating phases, bouts of sickness,off-farm opportunities for men and women and shifts in livelihood strategies.

Learning to Manage Under Variability and UncertaintyThe variability and uncertainty which characterize thedecision-making environment for farm householdscalls for specific approaches in developmentprograms. In the CATIE program, some keyapproaches include:

q using daily life situations as learninglaboratories

q applying observational methods toregister key characteristics and createnew perspectives

q working in groups to identify andanalyze alternatives for action, takedecisions and analyze outcomes to restart the cycle

These approaches reverberate throughout the national research and extensionsystem. Field extensionists and scientists should strengthen similar skills andapply similar routines to work more effectively to make IPM farmer-effective. Suchmethods apply as well with directors, leaders and policymakers.

Effective Linkages for Information Flow and KnowledgeGenerationSupposedly we are in the information age, but that information is not alwaysavailable where and when we need it and it may not be so easy to find. Farmhouseholds, rural communities, extensionists and scientists have opportunities toaccess information on ever-widening scales. The sources we generally think of areother farmers, extensionists and scientists. We often overlook traders, lenders andinput sales staff, but information and ideas flow from them as well as fromteachers, artisans, government officials as well as mass, scientific and technicalmedia. We are learning to ask – how well are these sectors articulated in terms ofinformation flow and how well do they interact for knowledge generation? Thismeasures the capacity of diverse interest groups regionally and nationally toresolve problems and take advantage of opportunities.


Strengthening Capacity and Access to Information for ManagingEcological VariabilityCATIE’s IPM group in Nicaragua, since its inception in 1989, has been developingworking methods to reorient training and research in IPM to farm family capacityto harness ecological processes in their farming practices. Key elements in themodel are:

q a farmer group learning approach based on observation andexperimentation by crop stage

q parallel extensionists’ training in ecology and methods for crop stagelearning

q multi-institutional groups of scientist-trainers with training and researchagenda linked to farmer management of ecological variability

q multi-institutional planning and monitoring of capacity for IPMimplementation

Farmer Participatory Group Learning and Experimentation by Crop StagePre-training diagnostics show that small farmers have specific, piecemealknowledge of their crops and the associated fauna. They are experimenters withexceptional experience with the range of weather situations that can occur in agiven locality. However, they have a weaker understanding of life cycles and trophicrelationships, are not familiar with specific diseases and their causes and oftenemploy poorly-timed and ill-directed pest management practices. The participatorygroup learning approach by crop stage is designed to strengthen farmers’ capacityfor field observation, ecological reasoning, and planning and decision-making.

A typical learning routine begins prior to cropplanting when farmers meet to discuss their cropand pest management practices and problems.Farmers and extensionists together then drawup a plan for regular meetings and theestablishment of learning plots forexperimenting with improved crop and pestmanagement. In each of the events carriedout in successive crop stages, farmersdiscuss the practices and problems in theirfields and review costs to date. They discuss whatalternative they have for strengthening the crop,making conditions less favorable for pests,making conditions more favorable for beneficialinsects, and for controlling pests directly. Eachevent includes a field exercise to observe andquantify pest problems, crop vigor and beneficialand resident flora and fauna. Between each meeting, farmers complete scouting intheir own fields and report the results at the next meeting. They may also conductsimple learning exercises and experiments with alternative management practices intheir own fields. They compare their results with other farmers’ results in themeetings. At the end of the cycle, farmers review crop vigor and pest problemsduring the crop cycle, analyze the effectiveness of their management decisions andplan for the next crop cycle.


After a 2-3 day workshop which provides a technical and ecological overview ofIPM in the crop, an introduction to participatory methods and training in smallproject formulation, each extensionist completes a participatory diagnostic andplanning event with farmers and writes a small project proposal with objectives,activities and indicators. In the next 4-5 events, extensionists discuss their previousevent with their farmer group, do field exercises to strengthen their understandingof the current crop phase and plan their next event with farmers. At the last event,extensionists analyze what happened with the crop during the year, report theresults from the work with their farmer group with indicators and develop aproposal for improved farmer training for the following cycle.

Extensionists’ Training in Ecology and Methods for Crop Stage LearningCommonly, extensionists have general knowledge about a wide range of subjects,but are less skilled at using agro-ecological analysis to assess specific fieldproblems. They have good relations with farmers to organize short training events,but often have little experience in planning a multi-event training process. Tostrengthen farmers’ skills for decision-making based on ecological reasoning,extensionists must develop new knowledge and skills in the ecology of IPM andcrop management. They must also learn to facilitate farmer learning rather thantransfer technology. CATIE-MIP (NORAD) and its collaborators do this througha parallel training process by crop stage. Just as farmers move from groupmeetings into observation and experimentation in their fields, extensionists movefrom training sessions into practice with their farmer group (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Extensionist Training Works in Parallel to Farmer Group Learning andExperimentation and to the Crop Cycle. The crop stages orient farmer group learning andexperimentation and parallel extensionists’ training. At each crop stage, farmers reviewcurrent problems, analyze alternatives and plan actions. Extensionists also meet to analyzethe outcome of their previous farmer group meeting and to prepare for the next meeting.The example shown is for coffee, but the approach applies to any crop.

Follow up meetingwith extensionists

Farmer groupmeetings

Coffee cropstages

Problem identificationand prioritization

Crop cycle planning

ExchangeAnalysis

EvaluationPreparation

ExchangeAnalysis


ExchangeAnalysis


1-day Coffee IPM Course

Evaluation of crop and practicesPlanning

Evaluation of crop and practicesPlanning

Ecological reasoningObservationDataTactics

Ecological reasoningObservationDataTactics

ProblemsTacticsPlanning

Post harvest plan

Dry season

Small fruits

Fruit filling

HarvestEvaluation

Participatory methods workshop

Evaluation of the technical-methodological reinforcement series


Linking Training and Research Agenda to Farmer Management ofEcological VariabilityFor farmer and extensionist crop stage training to be effective, trainers must haveaccess to certain elements: an ecological understanding of the variability in cropyields and food web dynamics, simple methods for scouting and decision-making,alternative management practices suitable to farmer knowledge and resources and afirm grounding in discovery learning, curriculum design and impact assessment.Typically, this information is incomplete and dispersed among many sources.Collaboration between CATIE and numerous counterpart institutions has shownthat multi-institutional working groups can assemble this information into anecological framework in successive approximations. These working groups bringtogether interested professionals from teaching, research and developmentinstitutions and projects. Such groups or sub-groups meet regularly to develop adatabase summarizing the state of IPM understanding and use among farmers,extensionists and specialists, a crop stage training curriculum for extensionists andfarmers, a participatory and formal research agenda as well as links for scientificinformation exchange (Figure 2). Each of these elements can be updated regularlywith data on pest levels and crop yields reported by farmer groups, studies oftraining impacts and results from experiments. These meetings also provide theopportunity to develop skills in participatory methods.

Figure 2. The Multi-Institutional Crop Working Groups. These groups achieve criticalelements for effective use of IPM by farm families with group activities which strengthen andintegrate individual and small group activities among scientists and trainers.

Multi-institutional working groupsbased on crop or theme

q Database on progress of theimprovement of knowledge andpractice about IPM in ruralcommunities, extensionists andscientiests.

q Training curriculum for familiesand extensionists by crop stage.

q Agenda for formal andparticipatory research.

q Ecological understanding ofthe variability in crops andpests, including the foodweb.

q Simple methods forobservation, scouting anddecision-making.

q Alternative managementpractices for pests withinreach of the resources andskills of rural families.

Essential elements for effectiveIPM among farm households

Activities by scientists andtrainers

q Extension training by cropstage.

q Participatory research withgroups of rural families.

q Conventional research.

q Publication and informationexchange internationally.


Multi-Institutional Planning and Monitoring ofCapacity for IPM ImplementationThe design of the first funding phase (1989-1994)wisely focused on national capacity for IPMimplementation, a perspective emphasized by eachsuccessive phase of CATIE’ projects in Nicaragua,although our perspective on the nature of nationalcapacity has evolved. CATIE has approached thischallenge by working multi-institutionally, withuniversities, the national research and extensioninstitute, growers’ associations and non-governmentorganizations (NGOs) with a wide variety oforientations. The organization of the first regional working group was proposedby counterparts facing multiple requests for collaboration from CATIE and otherprojects. Quickly, the groups developed useful functions of diagnosis, informationsharing and strategic planning through regular meetings and promotion of IPMand sustainable agriculture through regional fora (Figure 3). By 1998, there werefour crop groups, five regional groups and two theme groups involving over 50organizations. These groups developed an annual work plan presented in alogframe format with indicators.

Figure 3. Collaboration Among National and Local Institutions and Organizations atSeveral Levels Designed to Strengthen National IPM Capacity. Groups of farm familiesincreasing their pest and crop management ability are the reference point for the system.The other levels in the system operate to make the work more effective with farm families.This system links decision-makers through levels of specialists, trainers and extensionists to putIPM in the hands of the farm families.

Farmer groups and extensionists inlearning and experimentation

by crop stage

Groups ofextensionists inparallel training

Multi-institutional regionalcrops coordinating,planning and evaluatingIPM activities

National cropgroupsdeveloping andconsolidatingtraining andresearch in cropand pestmanagement

National andlocal leadersevaluatingprogress in IPMand proposingnew projects


At the national level, an adhoc commission which was organized to respond to asevere outbreak of white fly in vegetable crops evolved into the national IPMcommittee. This committee, made of representatives from universities, projectsand public bodies, worked to articulate activities among the regions and thenational crop working groups, to develop a national IPM agenda and to influencepolicy. Middle-level decision-makers have kept the committee active and haveoccasionally been able to bring in institutional leaders and policymakers for yearlyreviews and policy debates. Multi-institutional planning and monitoring of thecapacity for IPM implementation has had a crucial role in ongoing improvement intraining programs by linking the field training work to institutional decision-makers of participant organizations.

Organizational Learning Capacity and Innovation SystemsThroughout most of the years of project execution, the CATIE IPM projectsdirected its efforts for organizational strengthening through groups ofprotagonist actors – IPM specialists and field technicians who were responsiblefor IPM implementation with farm households and decision-makers whom weviewed as synonymous with their organizations. We assumed that thesecollaborators would discuss their experiences with our IPM project according tothe internal procedures and criteria of their own organizations and apply theresulting lessons to develop more and better IPM programs.

In the third phase, as a strategy for more measurable and sustainable impacts, weproposed that once the NORAD-funded program ended, organizations woulddevelop more and better IPM programs. A count of new IPM projects andproposals was easy to measure, but we also faced the challenge of measuringimproved organizational capacity. We decided to define organizational capacity asthe capacity to learn in response to current and future challenges. These arenumerous in Central America – global trade agreements, regional competition,environmental degradation, equity in development, national and organizationalfinancial crises, climate change. We asked: How well does the organization seek out,transform, re-combine and generate information to produce its outputs with theappropriate content of information and knowledge for current and future clients?

The CATIE team joined with a Central American Project forInnovation and Sustainable Development-UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Nicaragua (SUDESCA-UNAN),Nicaraguan Agriculture Foundation (FUNICA), nineuniversities and research institutes and seven fieldorganizations in Nicaragua to carry out threeparticipatory studies:

q the habits and routines of professionals ineach organization to seek out new information

q the formal procedures used in organizations toaccess and transform information into client-products in response to current and futureproblems and opportunities

q collaborations as opportunities to strengthen organizational andindividual learning routines


The analysis generated animated debate and reflection, because althoughcollaborations are an important source of information and financial resources, theorganizations found that they invest only minimal effort in the evaluation of theirimpact. CATIE discovered that, in spite of many years of collaboration, we hadvery little familiarity with the core objectives and activities of our partners. Allorganizations agreed that we needed improved procedures to negotiatecollaborative projects more in line with plans and objectives and to identify andincorporate lessons learned into our on-going programs. Few organizations hadmechanisms to track the availability of new knowledge and even fewer trackedfuture prospects for their knowledge products. Internally, their professionals hadfew opportunities to process and interpret information and knowledge, except intheir teaching programs.

These results were also used to discuss how well organizations and sectors arearticulated multi-sectorially in terms of information flow and knowledgegeneration to solve problem, identify opportunities and innovate. In a workshopwith representatives of our partner organizations we created a diagram of linkagesamong sectors (Figure 4). It was not surprising to find that research and fieldorganizations were oriented towards better communication with each other andwith farmers, although not with farmers’ organizations. However, other sectors,traders and lenders had better communication with the farmers. Research and fieldorganizations had relatively little communication with traders, lenders and theinput sector. Even though the different sectors may not have common goals,participants agreed that the capacity to respond to problems and opportunitiesdepends on the flow of information among sectors from farm to market.

Pending Tasks – Information Flows and KnowledgeGeneration to Manage VariabilityAlthough we have identified the need to improve the flow of information fromcommercial sectors including traders, lenders and commercial input suppliers to

Figure 4. Communication Links Among Sectors in the Nicaraguan AgriculturalInnovation System from the Perspective of Research and Field Organizations, Farmersand Agroindustry. The darker the line, the more fluid and informed the communication. Thecircle and line on the outer edge of each box indicate communication with others of thesame sector and international communication respectively.

Policies, laws, regulations,agreements

Research andeducation

organizations

Input sector

Technical assistanceand rural development

organizations

Field buyers, traders,processors, exporters

FarmersType 3Type 1 Type 2

Lenders/Credit


research and field organizations and farmer associations, the question remainshow to do this. These sectors are traditionally seen as adversaries that charge highinterest rates, pay low prices, get most of the profit from agricultural productionand sell unneeded and toxic pesticides. How can we harness this discordthrough methods that improve the capacity of the system to respond toproblems and opportunities?

Now that we have developed a perspective of the flow of information in thesocial process of innovation, a second challenge is how to monitor the linkagesamong sectors. This is a call for strengthening the methods of multi-organizational working groups, networks and coalitions that may serve amonitoring function. How do we know that the local and nationalinnovation system is becoming more effective through the diverseefforts to improve information flow?

A third challenge is to revisit what we think we already do well in our work withparticipatory learning and experimentation. Are there opportunities foradjustment and improvement to make our collaborative projects moreeffective? Can we strengthen our partner organizations’ capacity tolearn? Can our collaborative projects contribute to more effectivelinkages among sectors and greater system articulation based on thepositive use of discord?

ReferencesMonterey, J. and F. Guharay. 1997. Proceso Investigacion-Transferencia Participativa con

Comunidades de Productores Horticolas. In: Faessert, C., K. Prins, J. Oduber and S. Wesphal(eds). Memoria Taller de Investigacion Participativa: Generacion e Intercambio deConocimientos por y con Familias Campesinas Nativas. CATIE. Turrialba. pp 42-59.

Staver, C. 1998. Managing Ground Cover Heterogeneity in Perennial Crops Under Trees. FromReplicated Plots to Farmer Practice. In: Buck, L., J. Lassoie and E. Fernandes (eds). Agroforestryin Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press. pp 67-96.

Staver, C. and F. Guharay. 2001. Building Integrated Pest Management Practices in Central America:Experiences of CATIE. In: Maredia, K., D. Dkouo and D. Mota-Sanchez (eds). Integrated PestManagement in the Global Arena. CABI International, Wallingford, UK.

Staver, C., F. Guharay, D. Monterroso and R. Munschler. 2001. Designing Pest-Suppressive Multi-Strata Perennial Crop Systems: Shade-Grown Coffee in Central America as a Case Study.Agroforestry Systems 53: 151-170.

Staver, C. 2002. Farmer Learning Linked to Ecological Processes for Better Pest Management:Challenges to CATIE and Its Partners (In Spanish). Revista MIP y Agroecologica 65: 21-33.

Staver, C. 2004. MIP en Manos de Familias Rurales. Serie Tecnica Informe Tecnico No. 334.CATIE. Managua, Nicaragua.

Contributed by:Charles Staver and Falguni GuharayEmail: [email protected]



Institutionalizing ParticipatoryResearch in Renewable NaturalResources in Bhutan

H istorically in Bhutan, research and development on natural resources wassector-specific, commodity- and discipline-focused and research-led with littlecommunity involvement. The Renewable Natural Resource Research Center(Bajo) of the Ministry of Agriculture piloted a watershed Community-BasedNatural Resource Management (CBNRM) projectfocusing on improving resource productivity toimprove livelihoods through integrated naturalresource management with the participation of localcommunities. The project involved a participatoryand integrated approach to diagnose problems, planand implement necessary interventions inconjunction with conventional research on-station.

This paper describes how participatory action research (PAR) in the fieldinfluenced changes in the community, at the Bajo Research Center, and morewidely in the agricultural research system in Bhutan.

The Bajo Renewable Natural Resource Research Center (RNRRC)

The Ministry of Agriculture embodies the Renewable Natural Resources (RNR) sectors ofAgriculture, Livestock and Forestry, and is in charge of managing natural resources. TheRNR Research Center at Bajo is one of four such organizations in the country under theCouncil of RNR Research of Bhutan (CoRRB). It has dual mandates of coordinatingnational level research on field crops (e.g., staples, oilcrops and grain legumes) andresponding to the research and development needs of its five districts at the regionallevel. The other centers located in different regions of the country have nationalmandates for livestock, forestry and horticulture.

Adapted from a chapterforthcoming in:Tyler, S. (ed). Community-BasedNatural Resource Management:Action Research and PolicyChange in Asia. Ottawa: IDRCBooks, forthcoming 2005.

5353535353

177Institutionalizing Participatory Research inRenewable Natural Resources in Bhutan

Recognizing the Need for Participatory ApproachesThe research approach of Bajo evolved from a focus on single commodities, toone of farming systems and then to integrated natural resource management(NRM). Organized and systematic agricultural research began in Bhutan only in1982 when the Center for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD) wascreated. In 1984, the team at Bajo, in collaboration with the International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI), developed a program of research on rice improvementthrough new varieties and management to address food security needs of theBhutanese. Similar to agricultural research elsewhere in the world at that time, itbecame evident that constraints to increased yield had complex and interrelatedcauses. The next phase of the research focused more on the development offarming systems technologies and strengthening the human capacity of theMinistry of Agriculture.

In this earlier work, farmers had little involvement in setting research priorities,planning and implementation of research. In addition, most researchers from Bajowere trained only in natural sciences and social questions relevant to the researchdid not occur to them. Scientists had not been trained to work directly withcommunities, to ask about their perspectives, or to consider some of the socialaspects related to the livelihoods of the people. At this time, these ideas were verynew to conventional research.

Starting about a decade ago, staff at theresearch centers began to be exposed toconcepts of participatory approachesthrough learning-by-doing and on-farm research, trainings andworkshops, and interactions withdonors and visitors. Recognizing theneed to work directly with farmers, theteam decided to integrate participatoryapproaches into their research program,and was one of the first organizationsin Bhutan to do so. Initially, this workwas primarily on-farm, and the teamsoon realized that they were neglectingthe linkages to other natural resourcesoften managed by farmers orcommunities in different ways. Forinstance, given the valley-typeagriculture in Bhutan, the forestsprovide livestock fodder and organicmaterials for fertility development andregulate water availability for farmingin different watersheds. The farmingsystems research program worked primarily on private lands and did not considerfarmers’ reliance on common property resources, such as forests and water, tomeet their livelihood needs.

Bhutan is a land-locked country in theEastern Himalayas between India andChina. It is characterized by highmountains and deep valleys, from anelevation of about 100 to over 7,550meters, resulting in extreme climatevariation, geography and biodiversity.A forest cover of over 72% represents alarge and valuable pool of naturalresources for the country. Over 80% ofthe population depends on mountainagriculture and livestock farming fortheir livelihood. Use of naturalresources, especially forestresources, remains anessential component ofBhutan’s livelihood andculture. Forest andwater resourcesare under statemanagementwith littlecommunityinvolvement inplanning andmanagement.


In collaboration with communities who were facing problems of limited resourceproductivity and poverty in Lingmutey Chu, a nearby watershed, the Bajo researchteam planned a pilot project employing a multi-sectoral and integrated approach,linking crops, livestock, forests and water, aiming to enhance productivity. In thiswork, the aim was to improve linkages betweenfarmers, researchers and extension workers toexpand research scope from solely on-farm toinclude broader resource systems, and includeparticipation of local communities. The team hadbegun to recognize the importance of communityparticipation to any activity planning -- indiagnosis, planning, implementation andevaluation.

The research team consisted primarily of natural scientists: soil scientists, waterengineers, horticulturists, foresters, entomologists, livestock specialists andagronomists. Only recently, one social scientist joined the team. The CBNRM andparticipatory approaches were new not only to the research team but also to thefarmers!

Implementing Participatory ApproachesThe team used an approach of combining participatorymethods with traditional survey methods and naturalscience research (e.g., measurements of hydrology, soilfertility, etc.) to understand problems and communityneeds. These processes were new to the research teamthat ‘learned by doing’ in implementing tools fromtrainings in the field. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools such asparticipatory mapping, wealth categorization, transect walks and focus groupdiscussions were extensively used. After an in-depth participatory analysis withlocal resource users, resource use patterns, management issues (e.g., access andcontrol) and conflicts over resource use became clearer to both researchers andcommunity members themselves. Upon understanding of the issues, interventionswere developed by the communities and thenfacilitated by the research team. On-farmtechnical interventions were based onsuggestions from farmers and somefrom researchers based on theirknowledge and experienceelsewhere. Areas of interventionsincluded soils improvement,irrigation management, fodderimprovement, forestryplantations, cereals andhorticulture and institutionbuilding and skill development.

The CBNRM project took placeover two phases from 1997 to2004, and was jointly funded bythe International DevelopmentResearch Center (IDRC) and theSwiss Agency for DevelopmentCooperation (SDC).

“Never in my life was Iconsulted…. I was alwaysasked to do….. This is the firsttime that people are askingmy views on our needs.”- Farmer Ap Wangda, 68


Water Management in Lingmutey Chu: A Case Example

In the Lingmutey Chu, problems of water scarcity, conflicts over water use, anddemands for maintenance support by the communities were key issues. The team usedparticipatory research methods to understand and analyze issues concerning wateruse and management and develop sustainable options for improvement. The researchteam worked with communities, using focus group discussions, participant observation,interviews and PRA tools such as resource mapping, seasonal calendars and transectwalks. Two water engineers spent three months camping in the upper watershed anddaily walked the fields to listen, observe, learn and analyze traditional watermanagement systems. Previously, water scientists were fresh from university, withoutmuch grounding or knowledge in participatory methods and approaches. They hadvery fixed ideas and technical solutions to any problem without considering localperspectives and needs. After staying in the communities, the scientists learned byobserving what locals are doing themselves, how farmers express and define resourceconstraints, and how they relate local problems and terms with scientific terminology.Staying and learning with the communities opened up the scientists’ perspectives andhelped them to relate and adapt their technical expertise to ground realities.

A key issue that emerged was a conflict on water resources between upstream anddownstream communities. Traditional water sharing systems are not based on equityand efficiency, but on two principles — “first come first served” and “upstream userscan divert all the flow into their irrigation canal regardless of the need of downstreamusers”. This rationale clearly favors upstream users and leaves downstream users to useseepage or tail waters from the canal.

The team first held separate discussions with both upstream and downstreamcommunities about the inequity in access to water resources. Based on exposure tovarious participatory approaches and conflict resolution mechanisms, the researchteam used a role-playing game as a tool to activate dialogue and to enrichresearchers’ and farmers’ knowledge of the situation (Gurung, 2003). Role playingexercises helped break the barriers of communication and facilitated the differentcommunities – and the researchers – to understand and appreciate issues andperceptions on shared resources.

Simultaneously, the water research team leader brought the issues of inequitablesharing in traditional water systems to the national level Agriculture Policy and PlanningDivision. A policy was developed promoting the principles of equitable access to waterresources as this is a common problem in other watersheds. This was presented to thecommunities for feedback. The community in the upper watershed, upon seeing thelegal support for entitlements by thecommunity in the lower watershed,became more willing to negotiatewith the downstream communityon a long-term basis. Currently, thecommunities are continuing thenegotiations in a forum at thewatershed level.

In this case example, the role ofresearchers has changed from atechnologist to one of facilitatorand coordinator, aiming to linkdifferent institutes, organizationsand individuals in order to solveproblems and meet communityneeds. The experience highlightedthe importance and potential ofpolicy to address common propertyissues.


Project Impacts in the Community and Beyond:Changes in Doing ResearchOverall, the project led to a number of positive changes in the communities in thewatershed, such as:

q improved resource productivityq strengthened social assets and local institutions for planning,

implementing and monitoring resource managementq groups are now uniting, identifying resources and working together

towards common community goals (for example, in one community asavings group was established, the first of its kind in the country)

q communities have a stronger and more active voice in seeking supportfrom the research center and from local government

The project has transformed the way the Research Center at Bajo operates:

q The RNRRC reoriented its research agenda to reflect the needs ofcommunity priorities, rather than the interests of the researchers.

q The research team improved their capacity to integrate social issues in theresearch program.

q The research team began to assess and investigate problems in a new waywith a more flexible approach to address resource problems depending oncommunity needs and working closely with community members.

q The RNRRC conducts more integrated planning and implementation ofresearch. Staff from all the sectors and sub-sectors (crops, livestock, forest,Integrated Pest Management (IPM), socio-economics, water) now discusstheir plans together and explore opportunities for synergy.

q More emphasis is being placed on participatory technology development,participatory plant breeding and variety selection, and the need to build onfarmers’ knowledge and practices.

The Bajo research team has learned some key lessons:

q Learning by doing. Participatoryapproaches in natural resource managementhas become a favorite rhetoric inuniversities, research institutions, donorsand among extension agents. However, itis only in practical implementation thatthe team could start to understand whatparticipatory approaches and integratedCBNRM is all about. There is a need toimplement, reflect and readjust work andpriorities in a cycle of reflection, learning and action.

q Researcher as facilitator. Researchers must take on new roles asfacilitators. This is very challenging and difficult, specially for those withtraining in the natural sciences. Working with diverse stakeholders is time-consuming and complex, requiring constant negotiation and adjustmentsto keep everyone comfortable and involved.


q Participatory research is essential for relevant research. Researchpriorities should address community needs and concerns for them to berelevant and improve farmers’ lives. Local needs should be identified earlyand improve the research process. Interventions developed withcommunities addressed community priorities and were more relevant intheir social and physical contexts. This led to increased adoption oftechnological and institutional interventions among farmers. This processalso enabled community members to have a better understanding of, andlater a stronger say in, resource policies.

q Building rapport with communities for meaningful work.Participatory approaches require time to build meaningful partnershipbetween researchers and communities. Commitment, sincerity, trust andprofessionalism on the part of the research team are key factors inbuilding rapport with the communities. The intensive nature of workrequires frequent visits and interactions with the communities. Researchprograms should be willing to support this and allocate additionalresources.

q Linking both participatory and conventional researchapproaches. It is important to complement participatory research incommunities with conventional research, on-station, in order to explorenew technologies and options. The research team was able to introducetechnical knowledge and research results related to crops, soil fertility, soilerosion control, water, feed and fodder from work on the station which isthen integrated in designing interventions to address the community’sexpressed needs and resource problems.

Scaling-up CBNRM Approach in Research andDevelopment in BhutanThe RNRRC Bajo was the first institution in the country to pilot a watershedCBNRM approach. The Lingmutey Chu case also had effects beyond Bajo toresearch and development in the renewablenatural resource sector in Bhutan. Sharingproject experiences with other agencies andfarmers through cross-visits and farmer-to-farmer exchanges helped create awareness andfurther understanding of CBNRM andparticipatory methods. Senior ministryofficials also visited the project and gavepolitical support for the CBNRM effort.Project staff who gained experiencesworking in Lingmutey Chu later movedto other RNR research centers, andchampioned the CBNRM approach inactivities. Other CBNRM learningprojects were developed and implementedin other parts of the country.


A pool of CBNRM ‘movers’ committed to participatory research and developmentis growing in Bhutan. A national level Coordinating Unit has been established toconsolidate research and learning on field experiences on participatory integratednatural resource management. A national CBNRM framework has been developedthat provides guiding principles and suggestions related to community action innatural resources management. It also provides guidelines and strategies tooperationalize and upscale CBNRM programming in our work and in policyadjustments that may also be needed in the future. The framework advocatesCBNRM approaches and programs that are deeply rooted in the field learnings ofRC Bajo and the Lingmutey Chu watershed project, such as:

q importance of full community participationin the planning and management ofresources for effective management andimproved livelihoods of the farmers

q strengthening social assets withincommunities

q field-based action researchq networking and sharing of experiences

ConclusionThe CBNRM work by the RNRRC Bajo team has influenced the way that theresearch center approaches the whole process of research, including problemdefinition, methods, programming and links to policy and extension. This workhas enabled the research team to attune programs to community realities so thatresearch processes now lead more directly to improvements in the resource baseand productivity, improved livelihoods and strengthened social assets incommunities. The team has recognized the value of participatory methods toaddress resource management issues, but believe that participatory approaches canbe most successful when used in conjunction with conventional research andtechnological know-how in NRM. In order to scale-up these approaches morewidely within the research system in Bhutan, an emphasis should be placed onsupporting young scientists emerging in the research system to have importantqualities of commitment and willingness to learn, and to be able to work withfarming communities in a participatory way.

ReferenceGurung, T.R. 2003. Companion Modeling to Improve Water Sharing Among Villages at Rice

Transplanting in Upper Lingmuteychu Watershed of Central-West Bhutan. CoRRB MoA.

Contributed by:Sangay Duba, Mahesh Ghimiray andthe Bajo RNRRC Project TeamEmail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Members of the current RNRRC project team are DoleyTshering, Thinlay Gyamtsho, Gyambo Tshering, Yeshi, Aita Bhujel,Yonten Gyamtsho, Rinzin Dorji, Dawa L. Sherpa and MP Timsina.


Community-Based Natural Resource Managementand its Scaling Up in Guizhou, China 183

Community-Based NaturalResource Management and itsScaling Up in Guizhou, China

G uizhou, located in the southwest, is one of the poorest provinces in Chinaand about half its population belongs to ethnic minority groups. These groupsmainly inhabit the mountainous rural areas where they manage complexproduction systems consisting of irrigated and rainfed rice fields, less productiveuplands and grasslands, forestedareas and so-called “wastelands.”Problems that people faceinclude low yields, little cropdiversification, forests that ingeneral are not in good health,and overgrazed commongrasslands.

Since the early 1980s, China hasundergone rapid economictransformation from a centrallyplanned-economy to a market-oriented economy. As a result ofthe economic reforms, thecommune regime in rural China collapsed in 1980-1982. After the breakdown ofthe commune regime, farming lands, both paddy fields and upland fields, werecontracted out to individual households. This was formalized through certificates.

Guizhou is a typical mountainous area with 90% ofits total land being mountains and hills. Its 34 millionpeople are supported by a small, fragileagricultural land base, and deforestation and soilerosion are severe. Farming lands are scarce andin poor condition. Rural people mainly rely onlimited natural resources for their subsistence.Farmers are deficient in both cash and food. Themajor socieconomic indicators such as per capitaincome, grain production, area of arable land areall among the lowest in China. Of the totalpopulation in the province, 30% are living underthe poverty line accounting for over 10% of thepoor people in China. The income per capita is lessthan 400 yuan (CNY) and the grain yield percapita is only 200kg (Chen Deshou et al., 1997).

5454545454


This was called the householdresponsibility system. At the same time,the other natural resources such asforests, grasslands, wetlands and watersystems became the “commons,” i.e.,owned and managed by the individualcommunity/village.

The collapse of the communal system was sudden and no new managementmechanisms were designed to fill in the gap. It also proved difficult to revive thetraditional community management systems and practices that existed before thecommune regime (with the exception of a few remote rural ethnic communitieswhose livelihoods had not been affected that strongly). At the same time, new“external” influences and powers - markets, government policies and developmentinterventions - were beginning to exercise a very strong influence (Sun Qiu, 2004).

As a result of the reforms and subsequent changes, China’s natural resources havedramatically been degraded and damaged. To address the issues of resourcedegradation and biodiversity, the Chinese government has developed somestrategies:

q revising the Constitution to include natural resources protection, enactinga forest law and other natural resource protection regulations, and settingquotas for cutting wood

q initiating resource protection programs such as establishing naturalreserves and national parks, reforestation programs, and watershedmanagement programs

However, these strategies are not achieving the desired results. Reasons are the lackof manpower to enforce the laws and state regulations, and the resourceprotection programs not being community-focused and people-centered. Anotherlimitation of the State’s influence concerns the day to day (minor) violations ofproper natural resource use that often happen in local communities. State laws andregulations are frequently too general innature to address these violations and thesocial dynamics underlying them. Althoughthe promoted strategies are required, theirimplementation is inadequate and does notresolve the problem of resource degradation.

The problem with fully privatizedmanagement systems is that especially small(poor) farmers have more risks to endure.Community-Based Natural ResourceManagement (CBNRM) provides analternative approach to address naturalresource management issues at the local level.Local institutional building for collective actionsfor resource management is a major theme in a CBNRM approach. This meanssupporting the (formal and informal) organization of farmers, and empowermentwith improved capacities and a supportive institutional environment.

Under the commune regime, farmers wereorganized to work collectively on farmingland and manage forests, water andgrasslands collectively following instructionsof the commune. The commune’sinstructions in turn were based on theState’s economic plans. The Statecontrolled the natural resources through itscentrally-planned economic system.


Putting CBNRM to Practice: Getting StartedIn 1995, a multidisciplinary research team at the Guizhou Academy of AgriculturalSciences (GAAS), funded by the International Development Research Center(IDRC), initiated research addressing the problems outlined above. The teamdecided to introduce and practice CBNRM in two villages, Dabuyang andXiaozhai in Kaizou township of Changsuan County.

Building on Local Knowledge and Practice for Local InstitutionalDevelopmentUsing participatory appraisal tools, the team described and analyzed currenthousehold and community-based management practices; evaluated the impact ofeconomic, sociocultural and agro-ecological factors on the natural resource base inthe villages; and identified constraints and opportunities for technical and policyinterventions aimed at improving livelihoods and the sustainable management ofland, water and trees (Chen Deshou et al., 2001).

The project activities also included clarifying the use right of the resources, settingup and experimenting with community-based management groups, making newnatural resource access, use and management rules and regulations based oncustomary norms. The villagers were mobilized to undertake new collectiveactions. They contributed their time, labor and money, and took the responsibilityto manage the natural resources together. They also shared the benefits (ZhouPidong et al., 1998).

The Setting

The work started in Kaizhuo township located in the north of Changshun County, 60kmfrom Guiyang, the capital of Guizhou province. Two villages, Dabuyang and Xiaozhai,were selected as “pilot” research sites. Dabuyang, dominated by a Buyi minority, belongsto the lowland area and Xiaozhai, dominated by Han, belongs to the uplands.Dabuyang village has 200 years of history and Xiaozhai village has 50 years. This mayexplain why there is a strong community spirit in Dabuyang village.

Rice is the staple food in Dabuyang (as in most of Changshun county). There are 55households and 303 villagers. The arable land resource per capita is 2.6 mu (15mu is 1hectare) and it has 57.6% paddy fields. On the other hand, corn is the staple food inXiaozhai. There are 27 households and 117 villagers. The arable land resource per capitais 3.8 mu and it has 79% paddy fields.

The total forest land is 2747 mu, among which 870 mu in Xiaozhai and 1875 mu inDabuyang; the per capita holding is 6.5 mu (it is 2 mu on average in the whole Kaizhuotownship). The problem is that most so-called forestland is actually covered with shrubs. Inaddition, the management is not very effective. How to utilize and manage the forestland properly is a big problem.

Another resource is the so-called “wastelands.” This is land covered with abundant butnot very productive grasses. There are 1157 mu in Xiaozhai and 3732 mu in Dabuyang. Allthis grassland is natural; there are no improved grasslands. Water resources are scarceand difficult to utilize due to the fact that the area is a limestone area. The villagers haveto fetch water from very far places. They have to wait for the rains to “irrigate” their fields.

Nowadays, many younger villagers go to the city to work and this is causing a seriouslabor shortage, particularly during the busy season. The villagers are used to worktogether to complete each other’s household’s fieldwork in a rotating manner. Schooldrop-outs are common especially for middle level school children.


The local villages have a tradition to formulate local regulations to manage thewhole village. This includes how to deal with thieves, crop destruction cases, andsecurity. Based on these local regulations, several management regulations wereformulated to take care of the natural resources, with some people assigned toenforce these regulations: for water, road, cattle and forestland in Dabuyang andfor water and forestland in Xiaozhai. All these regulations were formulated by thevillagers (in a series of meetings) and distributed to each household.

Widening Horizon and Expanding EffortsIn 1998, after three years of research work and based on promising results, theGAAS project team expanded its efforts. A new phase of work tested and validatedthe experiences generated from 1995-1998 in four new villages while work inDabuyang and Xiaozhai continued and expanded. In the new villages, participatoryanalyses of resource management systems were carried out and constraints andopportunities for interventions were identified. The research team also broadenedthe involvement of key stakeholders, actively including local and provincial-leveladministrators and policymakers.

CBNRM Program Interventions

With input from and the participation of villagers, the team facilitated theimplementation of the following interventions and monitored and evaluated theirimpact.

q Strengthening the management groups and monitoring the effectiveness of the rulesand regulations for resource use and management. The organizations at thecommunity level have been effective, because they are relevant to real situationsand are operated by the local farmers. They complement the State laws.

q Participation of the local farmers in resource management was enhanced byparticipatory planning and implementation of the project and participatorymonitoring and evaluation (PM&E) activities.

q Capacities of local communities were increased through various training activities,cross-farm visits, and fieldwork.

q Participatory Technology Development (PTD) was practiced; farming technologyoptions were provided and tested in farmers’ fields by farmers and researchers.

q A participatory model of infrastructure-building at the community level was designedfocusing on integrating livelihood improvements and innovative managementprocesses. Women and men farmers were involved in the design, mobilization ofresources (labor, materials and funds), construction, operations and maintenance. Themeaningful involvement of the local farmers in the whole process has been the keyincentive for building high-quality facilities and managing them well (with an eye forefficiency, equity and sustainability).

q In one village, a 200-year-old problem was solved by the construction of a village-managed drinking water system, which is regulated under a set of standards and rulesthat define the rights and obligations of all users.

q New regulations for the management of the remaining collectively-owned forest landswere formulated in both villages and included an obligation to practice afforestationand reforestation.

q Orchards were established on some of the wastelands. Physicians and health careworkers from GAAS also spent time in the two villages and their support was ofparticular benefit to women and children.


In Phase II, the team furthered its efforts in the setting up and strengthening folkregulations of resource use and management that complement State laws. Forexample, minor damage to natural resources often occurs (e.g., a small bundle offirewood is taken away, a small tree is cut in a collectively-managed forest or fromother people’s forest land) that cannot be dealt with by State laws as there are nospecific items in the State forestry laws that discuss them). Village regulations andfolk agreements address these concerns and contribute to an effective naturalresource management.

In addition, the team integrated PM&E into the research cycle, providing themwith concepts and tools to reflect critically on the research process and themeaning of participation. This further strengthened learning and increasedaccountability and effectiveness because PM&E emphasizes not only what is beingmonitored and evaluated, but also who is measuring and how various concernsand interests are negotiated and represented (Vernooy et al., 2003).

This allowed the team to obtain a better understanding of the conceptual,methodological and practical aspects of the CBNRM approach. Five key principlesof CBNRM were identified:

q active participation of local community in decision-making and actions innatural resource management

q community-based institutional developmentq capacity building of local peopleq gender sensitivenessq participatory monitoring and evaluation

Expansion of the CBNRM Approach to Policy LevelIn 2001, the research team realized that the project’s initial success would remainlargely small-scale without the full involvement of the government. On the otherhand, the government had not yetfully recognized the positiveimpacts on livelihoods and thenatural resource managementpractices of the ruralcommunities following aCBNRM approach. Trying totransfer research results fromthe CBNRM project at thelocal level to policymakers athigher levels became theobjective of the new phase ofresearch. IDRC and FordFoundation jointly funded thenew phase.


The overall goal is to scale up and institutionalize the CBNRM approach intogovernment spheres and among local communities for sound natural resourcemanagement and sustainable rural development in Guizhou Province. This goal isto be achieved mainly by partnership development, capacity building anddissemination of research results for policy change. While identification of issues,principles and factors affecting in scaling up process is the core researchcomponent of the project, the actual implementation is translated into research,training and advocacy (Sun Qiu, 2001). These three components are integrated inboth “vertical and horizontal” scaling up processes as outlined in Figure 1.

Vertical Approach

Scale up within government system

Figure 1. Strategy for CBNRM Scaling-up Processes in Guizhou Province, China

q To cooperate with line ministries to integrate CBNRM elements into governmentprojects.

q To advocate CBNRM to higher level government through mass media, exposureof provincial officials to the project site, and networking with other organizationsin the province and in China.

Methodsq Institutionalization within the local government system (township, county and

higher levels)q Networkingq Advocacy

Horizontal Approach

Scale out through grassroots and area expansionq To facilitate farmer and villager-led extension.q To facilitate township government to practice CBNRM approach through small

grant projects in more villages.q Area expansion by the local government from six villages to the whole township.

Methodsq Farmer and villager-led extensionq Village networkingq Institutionalization within local government system

This scaling up/out approach represents a considerable methodological challenge.The team is experimenting with combing a horizontal and a vertical strategy totackle it. “Horizontally,” the focus was on community to community interactionsto build a strong social base (e.g., farmer to farmer extension); “vertically,” ongovernment-community cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnershipdevelopment to promote the recognition of community-based institutions fornatural resource management (e.g., joint action research). Meanwhile, the team wasencouraged by the fact that the government had adopted a policy in support ofparticipatory village poverty-alleviation planning, a village autonomy law, and otherpeople-centered guidelines (Sun Qiu, 2001).


Progress Made so FarThe township government has already included scaling out of the CBNRMapproach in its 2004 workplan. There are now 29 villages in the township (out of37) involved in testing the CBNRM approach. In these project villages, 30management agreements have been approved and results are very promising.Management systems regulations are effective and township officials and villagersbegin to have more dialogue compared to before. There is an evident change inattitude of township officials and they have started to integrate gender perspectiveinto their daily work. In villagers’ committee election this year, the townshipofficials required that all the four administrative villages must select one woman inthe administrative village committee (this never happened before). Three womenwere selected in the four villages.

Scaling Up Projects in Guizhou, China

Three types of action research projects were identified as testing ground for such CBNRMbased partnerships with the government. The three types represent a mix of vertical andhorizontal elements. In each case, however, the township officials are key implementersin adopting a CBNRM approach, while the project team members act as facilitator,mentor, coordinator, trainer, and researcher. This is a challenge in the Chinese context asit represents a radical change from past practice. We chose, at this time, to concentrateon investment type projects as these are the most common type of service provided bythe line agencies in agriculture and village development. The three experiments inparticipatory institutional and organizational development are the following:

1) Small grant projects (financially supported by the research team) that are fullymanaged by the community. This is a wholly horizontal scaling out in the sense thatvillagers learn from one another about group management and how to implementand monitor such projects. They set priorities by themselves. They manage the fundsthemselves (which only cover a part of actual costs) according torules and regulations developed in a series of meetings. Thetownship officials agree to such an approach andcommit themselves to assist the villagers. Four roadbuilding projects to link villages to the market, oneanimal bank that help poor farmers to acquireanimals, two water system constructionprojects, and one mushroom productionactivity have taken this form.

2) Projects supported both by small grants(provided by the research team) andby the government. This type combinesa horizontal and vertical strategy.Township officials work with countyofficials to assist the villagers toimplement the activities. A CBNRM approach is integrated partially, i.e., some CBNRMelements are employed. Since the project has some counterpart investment, theproject team has a say in how the project is managed. These have included threebiogas projects, two water system construction projects, one potato and cornexperiment and one animal bank.

3) Projects supported exclusively by the government, but integrating some elements of aCBNRM approach. This type combines vertical and minor horizontal elements.Township officials collaborate with county officials to assist the villagers to implementthe activities. A CBNRM approach is employed in a limited manner, such as in theimplementation and management process. Categorized as such are oneafforestation activity, one terraced orchard, and one water system construction.


The villagers are becoming more confident inapproaching officials to solicit funds forcommunity development. Priorities are agreedto after long discussions. Villagers also,especially the women, begin to initiate someactivities to strengthen their capacities andimprove their lives. The most importantchange of all is that more opportunities andoptions are created for the villagers and theyhave begun to be active in managing theirnatural resources, they have ownership of theprocess, and carry out or at least try outsustainable management practices.

In terms of scaling up, in December 2003, thecounty government has requested the PovertyAlleviation Office to adopt the CBNRMapproach in all of the county’s poverty-alleviation activities. One of the countyleaders said about this request: “The CBNRM flower is already blooming in Kaizuo andnow we hope that it will bear fruit in Changshun.” In effect, the CBNRM scaling upapproach was selected as one of the best-qualified suggestions of governmentprograms and actions by the Changshun county government.

Changes are also happening at higher levels of government. The prefecturegovernor asked the project team to provide him some lessons and readingmaterials about CBNRM. Township officials also advocated adopting theCBNRM approach, but this will require follow up. The provincial government hasgradually recognized CBNRM and provided funds to support the project. TheProvincial Poverty Alleviation Offices invited the team to do a consultancy andprovide training to the officials who are working with the poverty alleviation lineagencies. The project team members succeeded in getting funds from the GuizhouDepartment of Science and Technology to scale up the CBNRM approach. TheMinistry of Science and Technology from Beijing visited the project site, evaluatedthe work, and is planning to support in scaling up the CBNRM approach at thenational level. Some of the work detailing the approach has been published by theinfluential national magazine Outlook Weekly.

These outcomes are contributing to improved livelihoods of villagers, towardsstronger roles in decision-making about natural resource use and management inparticular by women, and a gradual shift in the (power) relationships betweenvillagers and government officials. Through nine years of efforts, the naturalresources, living conditions and the welfare of villa–gers are being improved inKaizuo township.

There are now about 9000 mu of forests that are growing well; 90% of the ricevarieties (except sticky rice ones) being used are good yielding hybrid varieties andmore than 60% of maize varieties are good yielding hybrid varieties. There are ninenew drinking water systems and four irrigation water systems benefiting about 550households. There are eight new roads in use that allow 500 households to go tothe market and access other services. There are about 1000 mu of fruit trees and

How to really institutionalize theCBNRM approach in the townshipgovernment is still difficult, even asmore officials are becominginvolved. One township extensionistsaid: “I only used to do what thesuperior asked me to do. Now, Ibegin to hold villagers’ meetings todiscuss with them and try out somenew things.”

And one of the township leaderssaid: “After we adopted the CBNRMapproach, many managementactivities are done by the villagers.The government has been releasedfrom some tasks. The villagers nowtake care of themselves. Thevillagers benefit more” (Shi Xingronget al., 2003).


crops (including strawberry) that are growing well and bringing in good income.Other alternative income-generating activities are pursued, such as mushroomproduction and virus-free potato cultivation. There are four villages that run ananimal bank with 230 households as beneficiaries.

Conclusions and LessonsThrough our action research efforts we found out that scaling up CBNRM inChina is a difficult endeavor. Most of the government officials lack the motivationand incentives to adopt CBNRM even though they recognize the usefulness ofCBNRM. There are no “CBNRM” ministry nor policies in the country eventhough many government agencies have recognized that their programs are noteffective. There is a lot of talk about poverty alleviation but how to implementsuccessful programs remains a big question.

One of the more obvious answers, for us, is the performance evaluation system ofgovernment officials in China. In the recently modified Constitution, “people-centred” is included as a criteria and the central government requires that officialsshould have the “right perspective and assessment” of their achievements. This isencouraging for scaling up a CBNRM approach. How to change the institutionalarrangements and policy-making mechanisms and daily practices that are needed tocreate the space for meaningful community participation in natural resourcemanagement is still a question and challenge, however.

Horizontal scaling out is easier than vertical scaling up. Villagers and townshipofficials are more directly exposed to the CBNRM approach and this allows formore face-to-face interactions and direct involvement. Township officials arecloser to villagers than country officials and more accountable to them in manyways. As a result, critical reflections follow more easily. Their work results are easilyrecognizable and villagers give strong support to activities that will improve theirdaily lives.

Cross-village visit are very effective for horizontal scaling out.Villagers are readily interacting with each other, listening andobserving, and trying out new things in their own locations.Women in particular have been very eager and active to takeon new ideas and put them to work.

Here are some of the things we have learned so far inrethinking and adapting CBNRM to the Chinese reality.

Meaningful and strong participation of the villagers isstill difficult.The villagers (men and women) can participate in governmentprojects to some extent as long as the interests of thegovernment officials are not seriously affected. Several of thegovernment officials phrased this as follows: “If we give all thedecision-making power to the villagers, what are we going to do? We will loseour jobs!”


Improving villagers’ and village head’s abilities in organizing themselvesand their confidence to approach the officials is very important.Villagers, in particular women, usually do not have a chance to approach officialsand communicate with them. Now, they begin to have a chance to meet theofficials, but still lack the confidence to express and defend their ideas. Sometimes,they worry that their idea is wrong or risky. One villager expressed this as follows:“I worry whether what I say is appropriate and if it will be accepted or adopted by the officials.Will they like my idea? I am not so sure” (Yuan Juanwen et al., 2003).

Integrating the CBNRM approach into the government’s daily activities iscritical.Although several line ministries of Changshun County have been trying to adoptCBNRM in their projects and the Kaizuo township has been implementing it inseveral small grant projects, it does not mean CBNRM has been fully integratedinto the government system. This stage is just a start of the integration process.Officials only practice CBNRM only in some projects. How to engage them morefully remains a challenge. One township official said: “I am interested in being involvedin CBNRM activities, but there are so many important tasks I must finish, otherwise, I will haveproblems in passing the annual evaluation” (Yuan Juanwen et al., 2003).

Improving the township and county officials’ abilities to implement smallgrants projects is needed.In the county committee, the members are from line ministries, but many havesince changed positions. We feel that we need to involve more staff more actively.This requires the permission from the government leaders and their commitmentto keep the same people involved until the end. As they are not used to thisapproach of managing projects, training them how to be more participatory intheir jobs and in project management is necessary.

Attitude change and support of country and township leaders are critical toscaling up CBNRM approach.Leaders play a very important role in giving scaling-up some space, in timecoordination, in human resource inputs and in other resource inputs for theprocess. It is crucial to find cooperative leaders. There is also a need to discusswith them options for win-win activities. Usually they do not want to take a lot ofrisks to try the CBNRM approach. One official said: “If the leader would allow me tojoin CBNRM activities, I would like very much to join…” (Yuan Juanwen et al., 2003).

Coordination with different line ministries is important - there is a need tostrategize about coordination.The team realized that their coordinating role has become more and morecomplex. Coordination needs to be approached more strategically. The teamassumed that since the county leaders agreed to be part of the project, they wouldalso coordinate the project efforts at the line ministry level. The team has learnedthat, although many efforts were made, this is not a given.

Partnership building needs to be based on a set of negotiable and non-negotiable criteria - government standards and CBNRM principles.The government has a preference for large-scale projects. Officials tend to adherestrictly to government standards in biogas production system, in reforestation, inorchard development, etc. They do not want to take the risks to be accountable to


the villagers and/or to hand over leadership and decision-making power to them.The team realized the need to be better prepared to deal with this aspect ofcooperation and scaling up, in other words, with the politics of governmentoperations and their service delivery mode. There is a need to compromise,facilitate and negotiate. In order to do this, we have to be clear on the negotiableand non-negotiable elements, so as to find space for integrating the CBNRMapproach (Sun Qiu et al., 2002).

Anticipate the different interests of various stakeholders.In relation to the government’s bias for large-scale projects, the team needed toraise the issues of feasibility and what is real success. The technical feasibility ofthe project might be clear from the government’s perspective, but the social,gender and organizational aspects are often not considered. A clear example is thebiogas project. The team is now consulting on how to address some difficulties inreaching the required number of household participants and how feasible it isconsidering the reality in the village. We also argued to be more flexible in dealingwith different village situations.

The team needs to strengthen its advocacy and training capacities.Most of the team members are researchers from natural science disciplines. We arenot used to speaking in public and lack experience in policy advocacy. It isnecessary to develop “charm” and self-confidence in talking with officials andenhance our speaking skills. Now, we have to act as researchers, trainers,negotiators, communicators, advocators, mobilizers and mentors. Further graduatelevel training in different social and natural sciences would be beneficial.

To conclude, an effective scaling up strategy requires a diversity of action-orientedinitiatives that combine “horizontal” and“vertical” elements allowinggovernment staff to becomeaware about the strengths,challenges and advantagesof CBNRM, experimentwith the approach, andadopt it in policies,programs and projects.This is a time-consuming and verychallenging process.


ReferencesChen Deshou, Xia Yuan, He Yuanlong, Pan Jiawen, Zhou Pidong and Sun Qiu. 1997. Practices and

Realizations on CBNRM in the Mountainous Area of Guizhou Province, China. In:Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Asia. Papers presented at an IDRCWorkshop, Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry. pp. 85-97.

Chen Deshou, Zhou Pidong, Pan Jiawen, Sun Qiu, Xia Yuan, Yuan Juanwen, Li Zhinan and ZhaoZeyin. 2001. Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Mountainous Areas ofGuizhou Province. Final Technical Report Phase 2. Guiyang: GAAS.

Shi Xingrong and Shi Xiangzhou. 2003. Guizhou Poverty Alleviation Practice: Empowerment isBetter than Giving Money. Outlook Weekly, Xinhua News Agency, Beijing.

Sun Qiu. 2001. Promotion of Sustainable Rural Development by Scaling Up CBNRM Approach inGuizhou Province. Project Proposal. Guiyang: GAAS.

Sun Qiu. 2004. Development of Community-Based Institutions for Sustainable Natural ResourceManagement in Rural Guizhou, China. Wageningen: WUR. PhD Research Proposal.

Sun Qiu, Yuan Juanwen and Wei Xiaoping. 2002. Promotion of Sustainable Rural Development byScaling Up CBNRM Approach in Guizhou Province. First Annual Technical Report.Guiyang: GAAS.

Vernooy, R., Sun Qiu and Xu Jianchu (eds). 2003. Voices for Change: Participatory Monitoring andEvaluation in China. Kunming: YSTP and Ottawa: IDRC.

Yuan Juanwen, Sun Qiu, Wei Xiaopin and Ou Guowu. 2003. Promotion of Sustainable RuralDevelopment by Scaling Up CBNRM Approach in Guizhou Province. Second AnnualTechnical Report. Guiyang: GAAS.

Zhou Pidong, Chen Deshou, Pan Jiawen, Sun Qiu and Xia Yuan. 1998. Community-Based NaturalResource Management in Mountainous Areas of Guizhou Province. Final Technical Report.Guiyang: GAAS.

Contributed by:Sun Qiu, Yuan Juanwen,Wei Xiaoping and Ou GuowuEmail: [email protected]


About the Collaborating Institutions

The International Potato Center (CIP) is a scientific, non-profit institutionengaged in research and related activities on potato, sweetpotato,Andean root and tuber crops, and natural resources and mountainecologies. CIP is a Future Harvest Center supported by the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).

P.O Box 1558, Lima, PeruTel: +51-1-349-6017Fax: +51-1-317-5326E-mail: [email protected]: www.cipotato.org

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is one of the world’sleading institutions in the generation and application of new knowledgeto meet the challenges of international development. For more than 30years, IDRC has worked in close collaboration with researchers from thedeveloping world in their search for the means to build healthier, moreequitable, and more prosperous societies.

P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9Tel: +1-613-2366163Fax: +1-613-238720E-mail: [email protected]: www.idrc.ca

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a specializedagency of the United Nations, was established as an internationalfinancial institution in 1977 as one of the major outcomes of the 1974World Food Conference. The Conference was organized in response tothe food crises of the early 1970s that primarily affected the Saheliancountries of Africa. Unlike other international financial institutions, whichhave a broad range of objectives, the Fund has a very specific mandate:to combat hunger and rural poverty in developing countries.

Via del Serafico, 107, 00142 Rome, ItalyTel: +39-0654591Fax +39-065043463E-mail [email protected]: www.ifad.org

Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development(UPWARD) is a network of Asian agricultural researchers and developmentworkers dedicated to the involvement of farming households, processors,consumers and other users of agricultural technology in rootcrop researchand development. It is sponsored by the International Potato Center(CIP) with funding from The Government of The Netherlands.

PCARRD Complex, Los Banos, 4030 Laguna, PhilippinesTel: +63-49-5368185Tel/Fax: +63-49-5361662E-mail: [email protected]: www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

www.cipotato.org

www.idrc.ca

www.ifad.org

www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

VOLUME 2: Enabling Participatory Sourcebook Overview vii The primary target users of the sourcebook...

Documents

Transcript of VOLUME 2: Enabling Participatory Sourcebook Overview vii The primary target users of the sourcebook...